R/CR.A/482/2002 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/01/2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 482 of 2002 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 DHIRUBHAI RAMABHAI NAYKA ========================================================== Appearance: MR RONAK RAVAL APP for the Appellant MR MA BUKHARI(211) for the Respondent ========================================================== CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ILESH J. VORA and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. T. VACHHANI Date : 28/01/2026 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ILESH J. VORA) 1. Here is the Appeal by the State against the judgment and order of acquittal. 2. Being dissatisfied by the judgment and order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Navsari, passed in Sessions Case No.130 of 2001, dated 19.02.2002, acquitting the respondent from the offence punishable under Section 307, 504 of the Indian Penal Code, the State has preferred instant appeal under Section 378 of the Cr.P.C. p. 1 R/CR.A/482/2002 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/01/2026 3. This Court has heard Mr. Ronak Raval, learned Additional Public Prosecutor and learned advocates Mr.M. A. Bukhari, for the respective parties. 4. Brief facts giving rise to file the present Appeal are that, four accused – the respondent accused Dhirubhai Naika and the deceased Dhaniben had been live in relationship and stayed at the village : Nani Desad, Gandevi, Dist.: Navsari. On 26.06.2001, there was a dispute arose on the aspect of cooking meal and due to sudden fight in the hit of passion, the accused respondent threw a live match stick upon the injured Dhaniben, as a result, she sustained burn injuries of the first category. She was referred to local CHC and then Navsari Government Hospital. The statement of the injured being recorded by the Executive Magistrate and on the basis of complaint, the accused was chargesheeted for the act of attempt to murder and provocation. 5.. Since the case was exclusively triable by the Sessions Court, the Court committed the case to the Sessions Court, which has been culminated into Sessions Case No. 130 of 2001. 6. The learned Sessions Judge framed charge under Sections 307, 504 of the Indian Penal Code against the accused to which, he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 7. In the course of trial, the injured Dhaniben died and as such, the charge under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code was not added because, it is not the case of the prosecution that, she succumbed to the injuries on account of the said incident. Page 2 of 6 R/CR.A/482/2002 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/01/2026 8. In order to prove the charge, the prosecution has examined as many as 11 witnesses and exhibited 14 documents. 9. 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. 10. The learned Sessions Judge after appreciating and examining the oral as well as documentary evidence acquitted the accused herein for the offences with which he was charged, on the ground that, the presence of the respondent accused at the place is not established and in absence of cogent evidence, involving him in the alleged crime, the charge has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt. 11. Mr. Ronak Raval, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the appellant – 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. The witnesses have categorically stated that the respondent accused was the author of crime and their version being corroborated by the medical evidence. 12. In such circumstances, as referred above, it has been submitted that while acquitting the respondent accused, the trial Court has discarded and ignored the truthful, reliable and acceptable evidence and as such, no cogent reasons being assigned while discarding such evidence. Therefore, it is submitted that the conclusion of acquittal recorded by the Trial Court is contrary to the evidence on record and upon erroneous understanding of law. Thus, it is prayed that the prosecution has succeeded in proving the charge against the p. 3 R/CR.A/482/2002 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/01/2026 respondents accused and the judgment and order of acquittal be set aside and accused may be convicted and sentenced for the offence as referred above. 13. Mr. Bukhari, learned advocate appearing for the respondent accused has submitted that the High Court in a case of Appeal against the acquittal, can interfere only when there are compelling substantial reasons for doing so and more particularly, the findings are without reasons and unreasonable and contrary to the evidence. In the facts of the present case, due to death of the injured, the true facts being not brought on record by the prosecution and therefore the presence of the accused is not proved and established and in that view of the matter, due to the dispute between the parties, the false involvement cannot be ruled out and therefore, the view taken by the trial Court would be reasonable and plausible view. 14. In such circumstances, referred to above, learned counsel appearing for the respondents accused, has submitted that the Trial Court while discarding the evidence of oral testimonies of the witnesses have assigned cogent and sufficient reasons while acquitting the accused and therefore, the judgment of acquittal passed is well reasoned, legally sustainable and does not suffer any infirmity warranting interference by this Court. 15. Before proceeding to address the rival submissions, we would like to place on record the scope of interference in an appeal against the 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 p. 4 R/CR.A/482/2002 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/01/2026 judgment of acquittal. The Appellate Court should bare 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. 16. In the present case the issue falls for our consideration as to whether the trial Court was justified in acquitting the accused? 17. We have carefully examined the oral as well as documentary evidence and perused the findings of acquittal rendered by the Trial Court. 18. In the facts of the present case, there is no dispute about the burn injuries sustained by injured Dhaniben. The issue is whether the accused with intention to kill the injured, caused burn injuries to her or not? 19. We are in complete agreement with the analysis of the evidence undertaken by the trial Court and the reasons for acquitting are seems to be based on the evidence on record. The injured Dhaniben was in relationship with the respondent accused. Except bald allegation, nothing brought on record by the prosecution that on the day of incident, the accused was in the house with the injured Dhaniben. In such circumstances, the findings recorded by the trial Court with respect to the presence of the respondent accused at the spot, does not require any interference. It is relevant to note that, due to death of the injured, the prosecution could not be able to prove the presence of the accused. In such circumstances, we do not deem it fit to entire oral evidence so as to examine the conclusion of acquittal p. 5 R/CR.A/482/2002 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/01/2026 arrived at by the trial Court. 20. With the observations as aforesaid, the appeal is accordingly dismissed. The Registry is directed to send back the R & P to the Trial Court. Bail bonds are cancelled, if any, and surety is discharged. (ILESH J. VORA,J) (R. T. VACHHANI, J) P.S. JOSHI p. 6 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 29/01/2026 11:27:46