R/CR.A/599/2001 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/01/2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 599 of 2001 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 DIVYAKANT ARJUNBHAI PARMAR ========================================================== Appearance: MR RONAK RAVAL APP for the Appellant MR ANIL S DAVE(242) for the Respondent MR KAMEN N SHUKLA(2930) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1 NOTICE SERVED for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1 ========================================================== 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, Godhra at Panchmahal, passed in Sessions Case No.67 of 2000, dated 10.07.2001, acquitting the p. 1 R/CR.A/599/2001 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/01/2026 respondent from the offence punishable under Sections 302, 323 of the Indian Penal Code, the State has preferred instant appeal under Section 378 of the Cr.P.C. 3. This Court has heard Mr. Ronak Raval, learned Additional Public Prosecutor and learned advocates Mr. Anil S. Dave, for the respective parties. 4. Brief facts giving rise to file the present Appeal are that, four accused – the respondent accused Divyakant Parmar, was tried and prosecuted for the offence of murder. The respondent accused at the time of incident was serving as a Police Sub- Inspector, posted at Fatehpura Police Station, Dahod. On 29.01.2000, at about 8-30 pm, the respondent accused and two constables were busy with the vehicle checking at the bus stand of Sukhsar and at that time, two Rajasthan passing tractors allegedly driven by PW-3 Madansinh Ugamsinh and others were intercepted by the police officials and at that time, according to prosecution case, the respondent accused assaulted PW-3 complainant Madansinh and deceased Manojarsinh, who later on came to the rescue of the complainant. The deceased and others went to village Vasiyafoi with their tractors for leveling of the farming land and while returning back, the alleged incident being occurred. It is the case of the prosecution that, the respondent accused caused abdominal injury with the p. 2 R/CR.A/599/2001 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/01/2026 stick and also slapped the deceased, as a result, his lever was ruptured and within 3 to 4 hours of the incident, he succumbed to his injuries. The FIR came to be lodged with Santrampur Police Station and then it transferred to jurisdictional police station i.e. Fatehpura, Dahod. The respondent accused came to be arrested and upon due investigation, the chargesheet against him was being filed before the jurisdictional Magistrate and same was committed to the Court of Sessions at Dahod. 5. The learned Sessions Judge framed charge under Sections 302, 323 of the Indian Penal Code against the accused to which, he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 6. In order to prove the charge, the prosecution has examined as many as 10 witnesses and exhibited 11 documents : Oral evidence PW 1 – Exh.8 Dr. Mohitkumar Rajnikant Mahajan PW 2 – Exh.9 Dr. Lalsinh Gulalsinh Ravat PW 3 – Exh.11 Madansinh Ugamsinh, Complainant PW 4 – Exh.15 Kalyansinh Harisinh Chouhan PW 5 – Exh.16 Babusinh Harisinh Chouhan PW 6 – Exh.18 Chetabhai Vichiyabhai Damor PW 7 – Exh.26 Vinodchandan Mohanlal PW 8 – Exh.27 Dr. Rameshchandra Harjivanbhai Shrimadi PW 9 – Exh.29 R.M. Rathod, PSI PW 10 – Exh.30 R.M. Bhabhor, Circle police inspector p. 3 R/CR.A/599/2001 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/01/2026 Documentary evidence Exh.10 PM note Exh.12 Complaint Exh.19 Panchnama of place of offence Exh.20 Panchnama of state of body of accused Exh.21 Panchnama of clothes recovered from deceased body Exh.22 Yadi to executive magistrate for Inquest Exh.23 Inquest panchnama Exh.24 Yadi to medical officer for medical examination Exh.25 Police report Exh.28 Injury certificate Exh.32 Map of place of incident 7. On conclusion of oral evidence, the trial Court recorded further statements of the accused as provided under Section 313 of the Code, wherein, he claimed his innocence and by submitting written statement, he pleaded that, due to political influence, he has been falsely implicated in the offence and as such, due to accidental injuries, the deceased has died. 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 he was charged, on the ground that, the prosecution measurably failed to prove that the death was homicidal and reasons for the conclusion are that, the complainant and other eye-witnesses, have not disclosed in their police statement that the abdominal injuries being caused by the respondent accused and considering this contradiction and p. 4 R/CR.A/599/2001 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/01/2026 improvement allegedly made by the witnesses, the trial Court did not acted upon the oral testimony of the witnesses. 9. 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 while checking the vehicles assaulted the deceased and others and the said version got corroboration from the medical evidence as there was rupture of lever and it could be possible by the blunt substance. 10. 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 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. Page 5 of 8 R/CR.A/599/2001 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/01/2026 11. Mr. Anil S. Dave, 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. The respondent accused is facing the charge of murder and it is obligatory on the part of the prosecution to prove that the death was homicidal in nature. According to charge and evidence, the respondent accused had slapped the deceased and given a blow a stick blow on the thigh. The witnesses later on changed their version as per the medical evidence and by improvising their version, the case was set up that, the respondent accused gave a stick blow on the abdominal part of the deceased and the said facts did not have disclosed at the earlier point of time before the police when their statement under Section 161 were recorded. Thus, the material contradiction and improvement discredit the reliability of the witnesses and the trial Court has rightly concluded that the death was not homicidal in nature. 12. 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 p. 6 R/CR.A/599/2001 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/01/2026 passed is well reasoned, legally sustainable and does not suffer any infirmity warranting interference by this Court. 13. In the present case the issue falls for our consideration as to whether the trial Court was justified in acquitting the accused? 14. We have carefully examined the oral as well as documentary evidence and perused the findings of acquittal rendered by the Trial Court. 15. In the present case, the medical evidence is not in dispute and therefore, it is proved and established that, the deceased was died due to rupture of lever as there were 3 tear on the lever. So far as, oral evidence of eye-witnesses are concerned, the complainant PW-3 Madansinh Ugamsinh, PW-4 Kalyansinh Chauhan, PW-5 Babusinh Chauhan have categorically stated that, the respondent accused while intercepting the tractors, assaulted the deceased and gave a stick blow on his abdomen. There is no dispute about the presence of the respondent accused at the place of occurrence and admittedly, the deceased and eye-witnesses were returning back with their vehicles – tractors after completion of their work. We have carefully examined the oral evidence. The IO – PW-9 has admitted in his deposition that, the witnesses did not have disclosed in their police statement about abdominal injuries being caused by the p. 7 R/CR.A/599/2001 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/01/2026 respondent accused. In our opinion, these material contradictions and improvements would fatal to the case of the prosecution, because, the substantial contradiction before the Court and in the police statement, would lead to the conclusion that, the evidence of the eye-witnesses cannot be relied upon and on such kind of evidence, the accused cannot be convicted which is contradictory and not reliable. 16. In the result, we do not find any perversity in the impugned judgment as the trial Court after going through the entire evidence, has rightly come to the conclusion that the injuries sustained by the deceased is not correlated with the role attributable to present respondent herein. 17. 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. 8 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 11:27:19