Gujarat High Court Dismisses State Appeal Against Acquittal in Murder Case Due to Unreliable Witness Testimony and Lack of Corroboration. Acquittal of Accused Nos. 2 and 5 Under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 325 IPC and Section 135 Bombay Police Act Upheld as Prosecution Failed to Prove Common Object and Individual Roles.

High Court: Gujarat High Court In Favour of Accused

Admin

2026-05-19 17:41:11

Font size:

Case Note & Summary

The State of Gujarat filed an appeal under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 15.09.1998 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Junagadh, in Sessions Case No.160 of 1995. The original accused were charged for offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302 and 325 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act. The case of the prosecution was that on 16.09.1995, the accused persons formed an unlawful assembly and attacked Chhaganbhai Kurjibhai Jadav (injured) and his son Niteshbhai (deceased) with axes, scythes and iron pipes near village Dhansar, resulting in the death of Nitesh and injuries to Chhagan. The trial court acquitted all accused. During the pendency of the appeal, accused Nos. 1, 3 and 4 expired, and the appeal abated against them, leaving only accused No.2 (Amrutlal Jethabhai Jadav) and accused No.5 (Shantilal Jethabhai Jadav). The State argued that the trial court failed to appreciate the evidence properly, especially the testimony of the injured witness and the informant. The High Court examined the evidence and found that the prosecution witnesses, including the injured (PW-1) and the informant (PW-2), gave contradictory statements regarding the role of each accused and the weapons used. The medical evidence did not corroborate the ocular testimony. The court held that the trial court's findings were not perverse and that the prosecution failed to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the acquittal of accused Nos. 2 and 5 was upheld.

Headnote

A) Criminal Law - Appeal against Acquittal - Section 378 CrPC - Scope of Interference - The High Court in an appeal against acquittal can interfere only if the trial court's findings are perverse or unreasonable, not merely because a different view is possible - Held that the trial court's appreciation of evidence was plausible and not perverse (Paras 5-10).

B) Evidence Law - Testimony of Interested Witnesses - Credibility - The testimony of an injured witness is entitled to great weight, but if it suffers from contradictions and inconsistencies, it cannot be relied upon without corroboration - Held that the evidence of PW-1 and PW-2 was contradictory and unreliable (Paras 11-15).

C) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 325 - Unlawful Assembly and Murder - For conviction under Section 302 read with 149, the prosecution must prove that the accused were members of an unlawful assembly with common object to commit murder - Held that the prosecution failed to establish the common object beyond reasonable doubt (Paras 16-20).

Issue of Consideration

Whether the judgment of acquittal passed by the trial court was perverse and liable to be set aside in an appeal under Section 378 of CrPC.

Final Decision

The appeal is dismissed. The judgment and order of acquittal dated 15.09.1998 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Junagadh, in Sessions Case No.160 of 1995 is confirmed. The appeal against accused Nos. 1, 3 and 4 stands abated due to their death.

Law Points

Appeal against acquittal
Section 378 CrPC
Appreciation of evidence
Unlawful assembly
Common intention
Testimony of interested witnesses
Medical evidence corroboration

Case Details

2026:GUJHC:6535-DB

R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1104 of 1998

2026-01-23

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

2026:GUJHC:6535-DB

Mr. Pravin Gondaliya, Mr. Rohan N. Shah (APP) for Appellant; Mr. Hriday Buch for Respondents

State of Gujarat

Jethabhai Danabhai & Ors. (Accused Nos. 2 and 5: Amrutlal Jethabhai Jadav and Shantilal Jethabhai Jadav)

Nature of Litigation

Criminal appeal against acquittal

Remedy Sought

State sought reversal of acquittal and conviction of accused

Filing Reason

State aggrieved by acquittal of accused for murder and other offences

Previous Decisions

Trial court acquitted all accused on 15.09.1998 in Sessions Case No.160 of 1995

Issues

Whether the trial court's judgment of acquittal was perverse and liable to be set aside? Whether the prosecution proved the charges under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 325 IPC and Section 135 Bombay Police Act beyond reasonable doubt?

Submissions/Arguments

Learned APP submitted that the trial court failed to appreciate that the accused formed an unlawful assembly with intention to commit murder and assaulted the deceased and injured. Learned APP argued that the evidence of the injured witness and informant was reliable and should have been believed. Respondents' counsel submitted that the trial court correctly appreciated the evidence and found contradictions and lack of corroboration.

Ratio Decidendi

In an appeal against acquittal, the High Court can interfere only if the trial court's findings are perverse or unreasonable. The prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The testimony of interested witnesses, if contradictory and uncorroborated, cannot form the basis of conviction.

Judgment Excerpts

At the outset, learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits report dated 18.12.2025 of the Police Inspector, Manavadar Police Station, stating that except accused No.2 - Amrutlal Jethabhai Jadav and accused No.5 - Shantilal Jethabhai Jadav rest three accused persons namely Jethabhai Danabhai Jadav - accused No.1, Vrajlal Jethabhai Jadav – accuse No.3 and Devshibhai Devrajbhai Parmar – accused No.4 have expired. The present appeal is preferred by the State of Gujarat under the provisions of Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 being aggrieved and dissatisfied of the judgment and order of acquittal for the offence punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302 and 325 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Junagadh, dated 15.09.1998, in Sessions Case No.160 of 1995.

Procedural History

The trial court acquitted all accused on 15.09.1998. The State filed an appeal under Section 378 CrPC on an unspecified date. During the pendency of the appeal, accused Nos. 1, 3 and 4 died, and the appeal abated against them. The appeal proceeded against accused Nos. 2 and 5. The High Court heard the appeal and dismissed it on 23.01.2026.