Gujarat High Court Upholds Acquittal in Murder Case Due to Unreliable Testimony and Lack of Corroboration. Conviction under Sections 302, 506(2), 114 IPC and Section 135 Bombay Police Act set aside as sole eyewitness's evidence was inconsistent and not supported by medical or other evidence.

High Court: Gujarat High Court In Favour of Accused

Admin

2026-05-19 13:35:38

Font size:

Case Note & Summary

The State of Gujarat filed an appeal under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, challenging the judgment and order of acquittal dated 31.07.2000 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Panchmahal at Godhara in Sessions Case No.322 of 1999. The respondents (original accused) were acquitted of charges under Sections 302, 506(2), and 114 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act. The prosecution case was that on 18.09.1999 at around 7:00 AM, the accused murdered Parbatbhai, brother of the complainant Chandubhai, by hitting him with a stick while accused No.2 caught hold of him. The trial court acquitted the accused, leading to the present appeal. The High Court examined the evidence, particularly the testimony of the sole eyewitness, PW-1 Chandubhai, and found it to be inconsistent and unreliable. The medical evidence did not corroborate the eyewitness account. The court held that the trial court's findings were not perverse and that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed and the acquittal was upheld.

Headnote

A) Criminal Procedure Code - Appeal against acquittal - Section 378 CrPC - Scope of interference - The High Court in an appeal against acquittal can interfere only if the findings of the trial court are perverse or unreasonable. The appellate court should not lightly reverse an acquittal unless there are compelling reasons. (Paras 1, 10-11)

B) Indian Penal Code - Murder - Section 302 IPC - Appreciation of evidence - Sole eyewitness testimony - The testimony of a sole eyewitness must be wholly reliable and corroborated by medical or other evidence. In this case, the sole eyewitness (PW-1) gave inconsistent versions and the medical evidence did not support the prosecution case. Hence, the acquittal was upheld. (Paras 5-9)

C) Indian Penal Code - Criminal intimidation - Section 506(2) IPC - Lack of evidence - The prosecution failed to prove the charge of criminal intimidation as there was no credible evidence. (Para 9)

D) Bombay Police Act - Section 135 - No separate evidence - Since the main offences under IPC were not proved, the charge under Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act also failed. (Para 9)

Issue of Consideration

Whether the judgment of acquittal passed by the Trial Court is perverse and liable to be set aside by this Court in exercise of its appellate jurisdiction under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Final Decision

The appeal is dismissed. The judgment and order of acquittal dated 31.07.2000 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Panchmahal at Godhara in Sessions Case No.322 of 1999 is confirmed. The bail bonds, if any, stand discharged.

Law Points

Appeal against acquittal
Section 378 CrPC
Scope of interference in acquittal appeals
Appreciation of evidence
Credibility of sole eyewitness
Corroboration of medical evidence
Benefit of doubt

Case Details

2026:GUJHC:7037-DB

R/Criminal Appeal No. 1066 of 2000

2026-01-30

Honourable Mr. Justice Maulik J. Shelat, Honourable Mr. Justice P. M. Raval

2026:GUJHC:7037-DB

Mr. Rohan N. Shah, APP for the Appellant; Notice served for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1,2

State of Gujarat

Bhaykabhai Naykabhai Koli & Anr.

Nature of Litigation

Criminal appeal against acquittal

Remedy Sought

State sought reversal of acquittal and conviction of the accused for murder and other offences.

Filing Reason

The State challenged the acquittal of the accused by the Trial Court on the ground that the judgment was perverse and against the evidence on record.

Previous Decisions

The Trial Court acquitted the accused of all charges in Sessions Case No.322 of 1999 on 31.07.2000.

Issues

Whether the judgment of acquittal passed by the Trial Court is perverse and liable to be set aside? Whether the sole eyewitness testimony is reliable and corroborated by medical evidence?

Submissions/Arguments

Learned APP submitted that the Trial Court erred in acquitting the accused despite sufficient evidence, including the testimony of the complainant who was an eyewitness. The respondents did not appear despite service of notice.

Ratio Decidendi

In an appeal against acquittal, the High Court will not interfere unless the findings of the trial court are perverse or unreasonable. The testimony of a sole eyewitness must be wholly reliable and corroborated by medical or other evidence. In this case, the sole eyewitness gave inconsistent versions and the medical evidence did not support the prosecution case, hence the acquittal was upheld.

Judgment Excerpts

The present Appeal has been filed by the State under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, challenging the judgment and order of acquittal dated 31.07.2000 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Panchmahal at Godhara in Sessions Case No.322 of 1999. The short case of the prosecution is that at around 7:00 in the morning on 18.09.1999, the accused with the help of each other murdered the brother of the complainant namely Parbatbhai with blow of a stick inflicted by accused No. 1, whereas accused No. 2 caught hold of him. The appeal is dismissed. The judgment and order of acquittal dated 31.07.2000 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Panchmahal at Godhara in Sessions Case No.322 of 1999 is confirmed.

Procedural History

The Trial Court acquitted the accused on 31.07.2000. The State filed the present appeal under Section 378 CrPC on an unspecified date. The High Court heard the appeal and delivered judgment on 30.01.2026.