R/CR.A/2017/2026(GJHC240524122026) JUDGMENT DATED: 24/09/2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/CRIMINAL APPEAL (AGAINST ACQUITTAL) NO. 2017 of 2026 FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ILESH J. VORA sd/- and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. T. VACHHANI sd/- ========================================================== Approved for Reporting Yes No no ========================================================== STATE OF GUJARAT Versus PITHA RANMALBHAI PITHIYA & ORS. ========================================================== Appearance: MR ROHAN H RAVAL ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the Appellant(s) No. 1 MR CHINTAN S POPAT(5004) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1,2 MR P S DATTA(11324) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 3,4,5 ========================================================== CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ILESH J. VORA and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. T. VACHHANI Date : 24/09/2026 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. T. VACHHANI) 1. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and order of acquittal dated 29.01.2026 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Keshod, Junagadh, in Sessions Case No.05 of 2022, whereby the respondents-accused came to be R/CR.A/2017/2026(GJHC240524122026) JUDGMENT DATED: 24/09/2026 acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 376(D), 498(A), 326, 323, 506(2) and 114 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, ‘IPC’), the appellant-State has preferred the present appeal under Section 419 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (“BNSS” for short). 2. The brief facts leading to the filing of the present appeal are as under: 2.1. The victim was married to accused No.1 about nineteen years prior to the institution of the proceedings. Accused No.2, who is the brother-in-law of the complainant, is alleged to have subjected her to rape on about twenty occasions over a period of approximately ten months, in the open fields situated at village Bamanwada. On the victim narrating the said incidents to her husband, accused No.1, the latter is alleged to have taken the side of accused No.2 and have assaulted the victim. Accused No.3, a friend of accused No.1, is alleged to have raped the victim on about twelve occasions, while accused Nos.4 and 5 are alleged to have raped her intermittently over a period of six to seven months. Accused No.6, the mother-in-law of the victim, is alleged to have subjected her to cruelty by way of taunts and humiliating remarks. It is further alleged that on 30.06.2017, accused No.1 blindfolded the victim, gagged her mouth, made her lie on the ground and, by use of force, stitched her private parts with a needle and thread, thereby caused her grievous injury. 2.2. On the basis of the complaint lodged by the victim, an offence came to be registered at Shil Police Station being G.R. R/CR.A/2017/2026(GJHC240524122026) JUDGMENT DATED: 24/09/2026 No.First-20/2017, for the offences punishable under Sections 376(D), 498(A), 326, 323, 506(2) and 114 of the Indian Penal Code. Upon completion of investigation, a charge-sheet came to be filed before the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Mangrol, being Criminal Case No.463 of 2017. 2.3. As the offences were exclusively triable by the Court of Session, the case came to be committed to the learned Sessions Court and was registered as Sessions Case No.118 of 2017. During the pendency thereof, pursuant to the administrative order passed by the learned District Court, Junagadh, the case came to be transferred to Junagadh, where it was re-registered as Sessions Case No.66 of 2019. The case was thereafter transferred back, and came to be re-registered as Sessions Case No.05 of 2022, before the learned Sessions Court, in which the trial proceeded. Charge under Sections 376(D), 498(A), 326, 323, 506(2) and 114 of the Indian Penal Code came to be framed against the respondents-accused on 11.10.2018, at Exh.-28. The pleas of the respondents-accused were recorded at Exhs.-29 to 34. They pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried, whereupon the prosecution proceeded to adduce oral and documentary evidence. 2.4 Upon appreciation of the oral as well as documentary evidence on record, the learned Sessions Court, by the judgment and order dated 29.01.2026, acquitted the respondents-accused, namely (1) Pitha Ranmalbhai Pithiya, (2) Kesur Ranmalbhai Pithiya, (3) Bhagwan Rajshibhai Pithiya, (4) Jetha Bhayabhai Pithiya, (5) Vajubhai Ukabhai Pithiya and (6) Rajiben w/o Ranmal Hamirbhai Pithiya, of the offences punishable under R/CR.A/2017/2026(GJHC240524122026) JUDGMENT DATED: 24/09/2026 Sections 376(D), 498(A), 326, 323, 506(2) and 114 of the Indian Penal Code as well as under Section 235(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, ‘Cr.PC’), 1973, extending to them the benefit of doubt. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said judgment and order of acquittal, the appellant-State has preferred the present appeal. 3. Submissions made on behalf of the State are as under: 3.1 It is submitted that the learned Sessions Court has committed a grave error in appreciating the evidence on record and has arrived at a perverse finding of acquittal despite cogent, consistent, and corroborative material establishing the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. 3.2 It is submitted that the learned Judge failed to appreciate the entirety of the documentary evidence, including the medical papers and the statement of the victim recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.PC, both of which unmistakably establish the commission of the alleged offence. It is further submitted that mere turning hostile of PW-1 (Panch witness) does not obliterate the effect of his admission in cross-examination that blood- stained clothes and bedding material were recovered from the backyard of the house of accused No. 1 in his very presence. 3.3 It is submitted that the victim’s initial version, both in the FIR and in her statement under Section 164 Cr.PC, was recorded without any influence or coercion. It is further submitted that even PW-8, the victim, though declared hostile, did not resile from disclosing the fact of physical and mental harassment meted out by the accused. Page 4 of 17 R/CR.A/2017/2026(GJHC240524122026) JUDGMENT DATED: 24/09/2026 3.4 It is further submitted that the evidence of PW-11 and PW- 12, the Investigating Officers, who duly supported the investigation carried out and the statements recorded, was brushed aside without assigning cogent reasons. A particular emphasis has been laid down on the medical certificate on record, which records the history of the incident as narrated to the doctor, and more significantly, records two stitches found on the private parts of the victim, subsequently removed by the concerned medical officer — a finding of unimpeachable medical corroboration that the learned Judge failed to correlate with the oral and documentary evidence. 3.5 It is submitted that the cumulative effect of the statement under Section 164 of the Cr.PC, the medical evidence, and the admissions of the hostile witnesses sufficiently proves the essence of the prosecution case, notwithstanding the hostility of the principal witnesses. It is submitted that acquittal recorded solely on the ground of witnesses turning hostile, without a holistic appreciation of the surrounding documentary and medical evidence, is illegal, perverse, and occasions a gross miscarriage of justice. 3.6 Therefore, it is prayed that this Hon'ble Court, exercising its appellate jurisdiction, be pleased to reverse the finding of acquittal, convict the accused, and impose appropriate sentence, as the impugned judgment is unsustainable both on facts and in law. 4. We have heard learned APP for the State, at the stage of admission and carefully examined the oral and documentary R/CR.A/2017/2026(GJHC240524122026) JUDGMENT DATED: 24/09/2026 evidence adduced before the learned Sessions Court. 5. The panch witnesses were examined in relation to the collection of medical samples, namely Mukeshbhai Ramdebhai Makwana (Exh.-38), a panch to the panchnama at Exh.-39 recording the seizure of medical samples of accused Nos.1 and 2, and Rupeshbhai Bhikhabhai Vaghela (Exh.-41), a panch to the panchnama at Exh.-40 recording the seizure of the complainant's medical sample. Panch witness Allarakhabhai Habibbhai (Exh.-82) gave similar evidence regarding the panchnama at Exh.-83, which recorded the seizure of medical samples of accused Nos.3 to 5. All the panch witnesses deposed on oath only to the extent of identifying their own signatures on the respective panchnamas, without deposing to any other fact touching the manner, place, or circumstances of the collection of the samples, or as to what those samples were or what they were found to contain. Neither witness was cross-examined by the defence. 6. Where a panch witness merely acknowledges his signature without speaking to the underlying facts, the panchnama remains formally exhibited but substantively unproved, and cannot by itself establish that the samples were collected in the manner or from the persons recorded therein. 7. For the same reasons, the learned Sessions Court held that the facts recorded in this panchnama were not proved beyond doubt, and this Court finds no infirmity in that view. Page 6 of 17 R/CR.A/2017/2026(GJHC240524122026) JUDGMENT DATED: 24/09/2026 8. On evaluation of the deposition of these three panch witnesses does no more than formally prove their signatures on the respective panchnamas of Exh.-39, Exh.-40 and Exh.-83. None of them deposed to the actual process of collection, packing, sealing, or forwarding of the medical samples, nor to any result flowing from their examination, since no such evidence forms part of the portion under consideration. 9. The victim, who is also the original complainant (Exh.-96), was the material witness for the prosecution in her deposition stated that she has three unmarried daughters and a son and denied that she had ever gone to a Government hospital at Keshod or Junagadh for treatment about eight years earlier. She stated that she does not recall at what time of the day the incident occurred. She spoke of her husband and her brother-in- law having been arrested by the police over a quarrel at home, and of their harassing and beating her without reason. She denied having narrated any incident to her sisters-in-law, Kanchanben and Tinaben. Although she made a passing remark that the three persons named by her used to force and harass her, she stated that she did not know whether her husband or brother-in-law were aware of it or not. She identified her signatures on the complaint (Exh.-97) and on the statement under Section 164 of the Cr.PC with the copy of her Aadhaar card (Exh.-98), but did not remember whether she had signed that statement on going to the Court at Mangrol. 10. Since the victim did not support the complaint, the statement under Section 164 of the Cr.PC, or any fact favoring the prosecution, the victim was declared hostile at the request of R/CR.A/2017/2026(GJHC240524122026) JUDGMENT DATED: 24/09/2026 learned APP and even the cross-examination by the learned APP yielded nothing helpful to the prosecution. 11. Thus, the learned Sessions Court rightly held that the victim disclosed no fact connecting the accused with the offences of physical or mental harassment, beating, or forcible sexual intercourse amounting to rape, and that her evidence could not fix criminal liability on the accused. 12. The statement and allegation made in the complaint so also the statement recorded under the provision of Section 164 of the Cr.PC cannot be considered as a substantive piece of evidence, for the purpose of corroboration and contradictions to the maker thereof. 13. After the perusal of the witness, Arjanbhai Jagmalbhai (Exh.-100), the brother of the victim, stated that he lived with his family at Khamidana and earned his livelihood from farming. He has five brothers and two sisters, and that his younger sister, the victim, was married and lived in a joint family after marriage. He denied in his statement that any incident had occurred with his sister and that he had received any information about it or that she had lodged any complaint of the incident or that she had taken treatment at a Government hospital. Not only that, this witness on suggestions having been put to him, expressly admitted that the sister was not subjected to any harassment at her maternal home at the hands of her relatives. This witness has not supported the case of the prosecution and was declared hostile at the request of the learned APP. Page 8 of 17 R/CR.A/2017/2026(GJHC240524122026) JUDGMENT DATED: 24/09/2026 -Evaluation of the evidences of Police Personnel and I.O.’s: 14. The police witness Rambhai Karshanbhai Garchar (Exh.- 129), who was posted as P.S.O. at Shil Police Station on 07.07.2017, deposed that the complaint of the victim was recorded before the Investigating Officer in-charge, PSI H.H. Bhatia, registered as G.R. No.20/2017 under Section 376(B), IPC and other sections against the accused, and that he thereafter identified the complaint (Exh.-97), the forwarding memo (Exh.- 103), the F.I.R. (Exh.-125), and the true copy of the Station Diary (Exh.-126). In cross-examination, he admitted that he did nothing beyond transcribing the complaint into the F.I.R. form and had no personal knowledge of the offence. His evidence is thus confined to the formal act of registration of the F.I.R. and does not, by itself, prove the commission of the offence. 15. The first Investigating Officer, Bhagwanjibhai Nathabhai (Exh.-130), deposed to having taken over the investigation, recorded the panchnama of the scene of offence on 08.07.2017, got the victim medically examined and obtained certificates from Keshod and Junagadh, and arrested accused Pithabhai Ranmalbhai and Keshurbhai Ranmalbhai under a panchnama (Exh.-43) recovering the needle-thread, coconut frond and clothes worn at the time of the incident. The I.O seized their medical samples under a further panchnama and called an F.S.L. officer to the scene and obtained the Investigation Van Report (Exh.-105), and recorded the complainant's statement under Section 164, Cr.P.C. (Exh.-98), and thereafter handed over further investigation to the S.O.G., Junagadh. Page 9 of 17 R/CR.A/2017/2026(GJHC240524122026) JUDGMENT DATED: 24/09/2026 16. In the cross-examination, the first I.O. denied several suggestions of the defence but admitted that the victim had come to lodge the complaint accompanied by her brother and sister-in-law, and that the complaint was recorded at the hospital. 17. The second Investigating Officer, Raidhanbhai Laxmanbhai Rathod (Exh.-131), deposed that he took over the investigation from S.O.G., Junagadh, arrested the remaining accused under panchnamas dated 16.08.2017 and 20.08.2017, and effected the arrest of the woman accused, Rajiben Ranmalbhai, pursuant to orders on her anticipatory bail application. The I.O. got the accused medically examined, forwarded the seized articles to F.S.L., Junagadh, and received the Biology, Physics and Serology reports. On completion of investigation, filed the chargesheet under Sections 376(D), 498(A), 326, 323, 506(2) and 114 of the IPC. 18. In the cross-examination, the I.O. has denied the suggestion rendered from the defence of he having fabricated the arrest panchnama and alleged documents referred to therein, in support of its investigation followed by the statements of the charge-sheet on faulty grounds. It is required to be place on record that even the documents which have been collected, prepared and received during the course of investigation and same is forming the part of the charge-sheet, cannot be a ground to concede as gospel truth as the prosecution still owe a duty to prove the same beyond reasonable doubt so as to bring home the charge against the accused. R/CR.A/2017/2026(GJHC240524122026) JUDGMENT DATED: 24/09/2026 19. Therefore, since the material witness not supporting the case of the prosecution, the purpose of referring the documents without there being any nexus and support, cannot be made a ground to come to different conclusion as it may adversely affect the accused. 20. Thus, in absence of any material and cogent evidence, the accused cannot be held guilty and learned Sessions Judge has rightly concluded while extending the benefit of doubt to the respondent – accused, as material reliance of which was being placed by the prosecution in the form of ocular as well as documentary evidence requires to be proved, which in the case on hand, seems to be lacking, in view of non-support by the prosecution witnesses. 21. Accordingly, the sum and substance after evaluating the evidence in a nutshell, is that since the victim has not supported the case of the prosecution, nor any material witnesses have come forward to adduce the evidence and simply by carrying out investigation and getting the documents and articles etc. can at the most be construed to be part of the investigation, which has no evidential value except the same being supported by the Investigating Officers followed by the statement of the charge- sheet, is a mere form of procedural aspects and cannot take place of the evidence. 22. At this juncture, it is apt to refer the judgment of the Supreme Court, in the case of Tulasareddi @ Mudakappa & Anr. v. The State of Karnataka & Ors., 2026 INSC 67, the relevant paragraphs of which read as under: R/CR.A/2017/2026(GJHC240524122026) JUDGMENT DATED: 24/09/2026 “26. At this stage, we would like to refer the decisions rendered by this Court on the aspect of interference of Appellate Court in the appeal filed by the State challenging the acquittal of the accused recorded by the Trial Court. 27. In the case of Babu Sahebagouda Rudragoudar v. State of Karnataka this Court held in paragraphs 39 to 42 as under: 39. This Court in Rajesh Prasad v. State of Bihar [Rajesh Prasad v. State of Bihar,(2022) 3 SCC 471 : (2022) 2 SCC (Cri) 31] encapsulated the legal position covering the field after considering various earlier judgments and held as below : (SCC pp.482-83, para 29) “29. After referring to a catena of judgments, this Court culled out the following general principles regarding the powers of the appellate court while dealing with an appeal against an order of acquittal in the following words: (Chandrappacase [Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka, (2007) 4 SCC 415 : (2007) 2 SCC (Cri)325], SCC p. 432, para 42) ‘42. From the above decisions, in our considered view, the following general principles regarding powers of the appellate court while dealing with an appeal against an order of acquittal emerge: (1) An appellate court has full power to review, reappreciate and reconsider the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded. (2) The Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 puts no limitation, restriction or condition on exercise of such power and an appellate court on the evidence before it may reach its own conclusion, both on R/CR.A/2017/2026(GJHC240524122026) JUDGMENT DATED: 24/09/2026 questions of fact and of law. (3) Various expressions, such as, “substantial and compelling reasons”, “good and sufficient grounds”, “very strong” circumstances”, “distorted conclusions”, “glaring mistakes”, etc. are not intended to curtail extensive powers of an appellate court in an appeal against acquittal. Such phraseologies are more in the nature of “flourishes of language” to emphasise the reluctance of an appellate court to interfere with acquittal than to curtail the power of the court to review the evidence and to come to its own conclusion. (4) An appellate court, however, must bear in mind that in case of acquittal, there is double presumption in favour of the accused. Firstly, the presumption of innocence is available to him under the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that every person shall be presumed to be innocent unless he is proved guilty by a competent court of law. Secondly, the accused having secured his acquittal, the presumption of his innocence is further reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by the trial court. (5) If two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the appellate court should not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial court.’ 40. Further, in H.D. Sundara v. State of Karnataka [H.D. Sundara v. State of Karnataka, (2023) 9 SCC 581 : (2023) 3 SCC (Cri) 748] this Court summarised the principles governing the exercise of appellate jurisdiction while dealing with an appeal against R/CR.A/2017/2026(GJHC240524122026) JUDGMENT DATED: 24/09/2026 acquittal under Section 378 Cr.PC as follows : (SCC p. 584, para 8) “8..… 8.1. The acquittal of the accused further strengthens the presumption of innocence, 8.2. The appellate court, while hearing an appeal against acquittal, is entitled to reappreciate the oral and documentary evidence, 8.3. The appellate court, while deciding an appeal against acquittal, after reappreciating the evidence, is required to consider whether the view taken by the trial court is a possible view which could have been taken on the basis of the evidence on record, 8.4. If the view taken is a possible view, the appellate court cannot overturn the order of acquittal on the ground that another view was also possible, and 8.5. The appellate court can interfere with the order of acquittal only if it comes to a finding that the only conclusion which can be recorded on the basis of the evidence on record was that the guilt of the accused was proved beyond a reasonable doubt and no other conclusion was possible.” 41. Thus, it is beyond the pale of doubt that the scope of interference by an appellate court for reversing the judgment of acquittal recorded by the trial court in favour of the accused has to be exercised within the four corners of the following principles: 41.1. That the judgment of acquittal suffers from patent perversity, 41.2. That the same is based on a misreading/omission R/CR.A/2017/2026(GJHC240524122026) JUDGMENT DATED: 24/09/2026 to consider material evidence on record, and 41.3. That no two reasonable views are possible and only the view consistent with the guilt of the accused is possible from the evidence available on record. 42. The appellate court, in order to interfere with the judgment of acquittal would have to record pertinent findings on the above factors if it is inclined to reverse the judgment of acquittal rendered by the trial court. xxx xxx xxx 29. From the aforesaid decisions rendered by this Court, it can be said that if two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the Appellate Court should not disturb the findings of acquittal recorded by the Trial Court. Further, if the view taken is a possible view, the Appellate Court cannot overturn the order of acquittal on the ground that another view was also possible. The following principles have to be kept in mind by the Appellate Court while dealing with the appeals against an order of acquittal: (a) whether the judgment of acquittal suffers from patent perversity, (b) whether the judgment is based on misreading/omission to consider the material evidence on record, (c) an order of acquittal is to be interfered with only when there are “compelling and substantial reasons” for doing so. If the order is “clearly unreasonable”, it is a compelling reason for interference.’ R/CR.A/2017/2026(GJHC240524122026) JUDGMENT DATED: 24/09/2026 (d) the appellate court, while deciding an appeal against acquittal, after reappreciating the evidence, is required to consider whether the view taken by the trial court is a possible view which could have been taken on the basis of the evidence on record, (e) if the view taken is a possible view, the appellate court cannot overturn the order of acquittal on the ground that another view was also possible, and (f) the appellate court can interfere with the order of acquittal only if it comes to a finding that the only conclusion which can be recorded on the basis of the evidence on record was that the guilt of the accused was proved beyond a reasonable doubt and no other conclusion was possible. 23. In a nutshell, the learned Sessions Court rightly held that the accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt. Its finding proceeds upon a proper and careful appreciation of the deposition of the victim and the other witnesses on record, and cannot be said to be perverse or contrary to the material available. This Court, accordingly, finds no ground warranting interference with the reasoning of the learned Sessions Court on this part of the case. 24. For the forgoing reasons, the present appeal is dismissed. 25. The judgment and order of acquittal dated 29.01.2026 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Keshod, Junagadh, in Sessions Case No.05 of 2022 stands confirmed. R/CR.A/2017/2026(GJHC240524122026) JUDGMENT DATED: 24/09/2026 26. Record and proceedings, if any, be remitted to the concerned Court. sd/- (ILESH J. VORA,J) sd/- (R. T. VACHHANI, J) PARMAR KRISH /22 Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judges. Digitally signed by: PARMAR KRISH(HC02348), ENGLISH STENO GRADE-II\, at High Court of Gujarat on 24/09/2026 15:33:14