R/CR.A/2169/2026(GJHC240669812026) JUDGMENT DATED: 21/09/2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/CRIMINAL APPEAL (AGAINST ACQUITTAL) NO. 2169 of 2026 FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ILESH J. VORA and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. T. VACHHANI ========================================================== Approved for Reporting Yes No ========================================================== STATE OF GUJARAT Versus PRASHANT @ MUKESH BAPU LALA PIMPLE & ORS. ========================================================== Appearance: MR LB DABHI APP for the Appellant ========================================================== CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ILESH J. VORA and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. T. VACHHANI Date : 21/09/2026 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ILESH J. VORA) 1. Here is the Appeal by the State under Section 419 of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding section 378 of Cr.P.C.) against the judgment and order of acquittal. 2. Being dissatisfied by the judgment and order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Surat, passed in Sessions Case No.495 of 2021 and 227 of 2023, dated 02.12.2025, acquitting the accused in number 4, from the offences punishable under Sections 302, 212 and 114 of the IPC as well as under Section 135 of the Gujarat Police Act, the R/CR.A/2169/2026(GJHC240669812026) JUDGMENT DATED: 21/09/2026 State has preferred instant appeal. 3. We have heard Mr. L. B. Dabhi, learned APP for the appellant – State. 4. Brief facts giving rise to file the present Appeal are that, the respondents accused were tried and prosecuted for the act of murder allegedly caused by respondent no. 1. The deceased Rohit was having soft corner with the sister of accused Prashant Lala. On this issue, there was quarrel arose between them and later on, matter was settled amicably. However, on the said issue, the accused Prashant had called upon the deceased Rohan on 07.02.2020 at about 8-30 pm at the place of offence and was stabbed to death by inflicting knife injuries on all over the body. The friends of the accused No. 1, who were present were arraigned had given shelter to him, as a result, the accused nos. 2 to 4 as well as accused no. 1 were arrested in the alleged offence. After the incident, someone had informed the father of the deceased PW-11 about the incident. He went to the place of incident and then, at the hospital, where deceased brought dead. The PW-11 father lodged an FIR after receiving the necessary inputs about the causing death to his son by the accused. After the registration of the offense with the Udhna Police Station, Surat, the I.O proceeded to investigate the case and during the investigation, he recorded the statement of the witnesses, sent the dead body for postmortem, prepared a spot panchnama, arrested the accused, recovered and seized the weapon knife allegedly used in the crime at the discovery panchnama, sent the seized articles to the FSL for Forensic Science Analysis and at R/CR.A/2169/2026(GJHC240669812026) JUDGMENT DATED: 21/09/2026 the end, the accused came to be chargesheeted for the offences as referred above. It is relevant to note that on the basis of supplementary chargesheet filed against the accused no. 4, the two Sessions Cases for the same offence had been committed to the Court of Sessions at Surat. 5. The learned Sessions Judge framed charges to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 6. In order to prove the charge, the prosecution has examined as many as 28 witnesses and relied on 30 exhibited documents. 7. On conclusion of oral evidence, the Trial Court recorded further statements of the accused as provided under Section 313 of the Code, wherein, they claimed their innocence and stated that they have been falsely implicated in the offence. 8. The learned Sessions Judge, after appreciating and examining the oral as well as documentary evidence, acquitted the accused herein for the offences with which they were charged, on the following grounds: (i) The eye-witnesses PW-12 and 25 namely Yash Gaikwad and Sachin have not supported to the case of the prosecution and after declaring them hostile, during the cross- examination, they have not supported the case of the prosecution. Even, the father of the deceased PW-11, did not have supported on the material aspect of the prosecution case. Page 3 of 7 R/CR.A/2169/2026(GJHC240669812026) JUDGMENT DATED: 21/09/2026 (ii) Recovery and discovery, as narrated in the panchnama Exh. 78 having not been proved in terms of Section 27 of the Evidence Act. The panchas of discovery panchnama of the weapons have not supported to the case of the prosecution and the I.O failed to depose the exact words disclosed by the accused as well as the contents of the panchnama Exh. 78. 9. In such circumstances, the Trial Court while acquitting the accused, held and observed that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the charge against the accused by leading cogent and convincing evidence. 10. Mr. L.B. Dabhi, learned APP learned APP appearing for and on behalf of the State, assailing the judgment and order of acquittal, has submitted that the findings of acquittal are contrary to law and evidence on record and the findings recorded are palpably erroneous and based on the irrelevant material; that the Trial Court failed to appreciate that merely because witnesses have been declared hostile, the entire case does not stand effaced from the record and the portion of the evidence, which is otherwise reliable and finds corroboration, can always be taken into consideration and therefore, the evidence of hostile witnesses having not been properly appreciated; that, after the incident, the principal accused was absconded of the place of occurrence and the other accused had given shelter to him, which conduct is required to be evaluated under Section 8 of the Evidence Act, alongside the medical evidence and recovery of incriminating articles, formed a vital link completing the chain of circumstances to prove the involvement of R/CR.A/2169/2026(GJHC240669812026) JUDGMENT DATED: 21/09/2026 the accused herein; thus, the trial Court ought not to have discarded the prosecution case in its entirety; the evidence of the IO to prove the disclosure statement of the accused is reliable, however, the trial Court discarded the evidence of IO in a mechanical manner; the forensic evidence pointing towards the involvement of the accused having been ignored and discarded; while recording the acquittal, the trial Court has placed undue emphasis upon minor contradictions and omissions, which has no bearing on the case of the prosecution; that the learned trial Court failed to appreciate the evidence on touchstone of probabilities arising from the proved circumstances and ignored the material circumstances on technical consideration without examining their cumulative probative force. 11. In such circumstances, the learned State counsel has vehemently argued that this is a fit case to grant leave to appeal and by admitting the appeal, the Court may call for the records and grant an opportunity to hear the appeal on merits. 12. In the present case the issue falls for our consideration as to whether the trial Court was justified in acquitting the accused and the permission to file an appeal is required to be granted or not? 13. We have carefully examined the oral as well as documentary evidence and perused the findings of acquittal rendered by the Trial Court. 14. Before proceeding to address the rival submissions, we would like to place on record the scope of interference in an appeal against the R/CR.A/2169/2026(GJHC240669812026) JUDGMENT DATED: 21/09/2026 acquittal and when the same is justified. In exceptional cases, where there are compelling circumstances and the judgment under appeal is found to be perverse, the appellate court can interfere with the judgment of acquittal. The Appellate Court should bear in mind the presence of innocence of the accused and further that, the trial Court’s acquittal bolsters the presumption of his innocence. Interference in a routine manner, where the other view of possible should be avoided, unless there are reasons for interference. 15. In the facts of the present case, there is no dispute on the issue that the death of the deceased Rohit was culpable homicide. In the present case, on the basis of suspicion about the relations of the deceased with the sister of the principal accused, the deceased Rohit was called upon by the accused at the place of incident and during the altercation, he was done to death by stabbing multiple times with the weapon knife by the accused Prashant. The father of the deceased PW-11 had denied the factum of incident and the involvement of the accused in the crime. He has stated in his deposition that, his son had suffered injuries in a motor accident. The friends of the accused as well as the deceased namely – PW- 12, 13 and 25, have not supported to the prosecution case. Even in their cross-examination, they have not admitted the factum of incident as well as involvement of the accused. In such circumstances, admittedly, in order to prove the charge, there is no direct evidence on record against the accused. 16. So far as circumstantial evidence is concerned, the prosecution mainly relied on the recovery and discovery panchnama Exh. 78 R/CR.A/2169/2026(GJHC240669812026) JUDGMENT DATED: 21/09/2026 and the Forensic Science evidence. The panchas of the discovery panchnama have been declared hostile. The IO in his deposition, failed to prove the contents of the panchnama and the voluntary statement disclosed before him by the accused. In such circumstances, the circumstances as relied having not been proved by cogent evidence and therefore, the circumstances cannot be taken into consideration to infer that the crime has been committed by the accused and none else. 17. In such circumstances, the charges against the accused are not proved by direct as well as circumstantial evidence. 18. In the result, we do not find any perversity in the impugned judgment and in absence of substantial and compelling reason, no ground exists to interfere with the findings of acquittal recorded by the Trial Court and therefore, in our view, the Trial Court was justified in acquitting the accused. 19. With the observations as aforesaid, no case is made out to grant leave to appeal. Accordingly the appeal stands dismissed at the admission stage. (ILESH J. VORA,J) (R. T. VACHHANI, J) P.S. JOSHI Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judges. Digitally signed by: PALLAV SUBHASHCHANDRA JOSHI(HC00177), Principal Pvt. Secretary, at High Court of Gujarat on 22/09/2026 17:23:22