R/CR.A/1492/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/03/2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1492 of 2003 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 DEVANAND @ DEVKO PUNJA BHATU & ORS. ========================================================== Appearance: MR ASHISH M DAGLI(2203) for the Appellant(s) No. 1 MR RONAK RAVAL, APP for the Appellant(s) No. 1 ABATED for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1,4 MR A. U. SAPHIYA(9891) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 2,3,5 MR MAHESHB BARIYA(2234) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 2,3,5 ========================================================== CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ILESH J. VORA and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. T. VACHHANI Date : 03/03/2026 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, Porbandar, passed in Sessions Case No.19 of 2002, dated 25.04.2003, acquitting the respondent from the offence under Sections 302 and 201 read with Section 34 of the IPC and Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act, the State has preferred instant appeal under Section 378 of the Cr.P.C. p. 1 R/CR.A/1492/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/03/2026 3. This Court has heard Mr.Ronak Raval, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the appellant – State, Mr.Ashish Dagli, learned advocate appearing for the original complainant, Mr.Mahesh Bariya, learned advocate, Mr.A.U. Vohra, learned advocate for Mr.M.M. Tirmizi, learned advocate appearing for and on behalf of the respondents accused. 4. We may take the notice of the fact that the principal accused Devnand Bhatu (A1) and accused no.4 Ramesh @ Ranmal Vira, passed away during the pendecy of the appeal proceedings and appeal qua them stands abated. 5. Brief facts giving rise to file the present Appeal are that, the accused A1 Devanand Bhatu had a dispute of local body election with deceased Parbat Karshan and in order to take revenge the election result, on 17.11.2001, the deceased was taken to farm situated at Village Kotda by the accused no.1 on his motorbike and then he was killed with the weapon skyth by the accused no.1 and after killing, his dead body with the help of accused nos.2 to 4, was being buried in the same farm. On the basis of missing complaint, the Porbandar Police was having suspicion on the accused A1 as the deceased was lastly seen in the company of A1 by witness Khimanand Nebha and on that basis, the entire incident was unearth and accordingly, on the basis of the FIR, the accused were arrested and dead body was exhumed from the farm where it was buried and after completion of investigation, the chargesheet before the Judicial Magistrate came to be filed. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions at Porbandar. Page 2 of 12 R/CR.A/1492/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/03/2026 6. The learned Sessions Judge, Porbandar framed charge under Sections 302 and 201 read with Section 34 of the IPC and Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act, against the accused to which, they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 7. In the course of trial, the prosecution adduced the following oral as well as documentary evidence in support of his case: Oral evidence - 20 PW 1 – Exh.11 Karshanbhai Sidabhai, complainant PW 2 – Exh.16 Ramsinh Hajabhai Farangiya PW 3 – Exh.18 Rajabhai Gigabhai PW 4 – Exh.19 Ramabhai Devayatbhai PW 5 – Exh.31 Virabhai Markhibhai PW 6 – Exh.33 Arjanbhai Govindbhai Bhaat PW 7 – Exh.38 Maldevbhai Karshanbhai PW 8 – Exh.39 Janziben w/o Parbatbhai PW 9 – Exh.40 Arjanbhai Kheemabhai PW 10 – Exh.41 Kheemanandbhai Nebhabhai Bhetariya PW 11 – Exh.42 Vajshibhai Arjanbhai PW 12 – Exh.43 Pithabhai Parbatbhai PW 13 – Exh.44 Lakhmanbhai Bodabhai PW 14 – Exh.50 Dilipbhai Vastabhai PW 15 – Exh.51 Chimanbhai Naranbhai Sagathiya PW 16 – Exh.71 Hasmuhrai Shantilal Bharthi PW 17 – Exh.73 Kheemabhai Jagmalbhai Maru PW 18 – Exh.78 Rakhalchandra Gokeshchandra PW 19 – Exh.81 Babulal Maniram Pawar PW 20 – Exh.88 Vikramsinh Hasrathsinh Gohel, IO Documentary evidence - 65 Exh.12 Complaint Exh.13 Missing poster of deceased issued by complainant Exh.17 Panchnama of recovery of body Exh.20 Panchnama of place of offence Exh.21 Panchnama of state of body of accused Devanand Punja and p. 3 R/CR.A/1492/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/03/2026 arrest panchnama Exh.22 Panchnama of recovery of clothes of accused Devanand Punja Exh.23 Arrest panchnama of accused Rama Devshi Exh.24 Panchnama of blood sample of accused Devanand Exh.25 Panchnama of state of body of accused and arrest panchnama Exh.26 Panchnama of recovery of clothes of accused Exh.27 Panchnama of blood sample of accused Ehx.28 Police yadi of collection and forwarding of blood sample of accused to medical officer Exh.29-30 Medical treatment certificate by medical officer Kutiyana Exh.32 Panchnama of recovery of weapons used in offence Exh.34 Panchnama of recovery of clothes of accused and recovery of motorcycle used in offence Exh.35 Panchnama of recovery of clothes of accused Rama devshi Exh.36 Panchnama of recovery of clothes of accused Punja Limshi Exh.37 Panchnama of recovery of clothes of deceased and blood sample of deceased Exh.45 Forwarding of case papers to PSI LCB Porbandar Yadi Exh.46 VHF message Exh.47 Investigation yadi Exh.48 Missing report Exh.49 Police yadi to SDM, Porbandar for inspection of dead body Exh.52 Police yadi Exh.53 Police yadi Exh.54-56 Copy of sample from village no. 8A, GA.N.NO 7-12 and GA.N.NO 6 Exh.58 Letter from SDM Porbandar to exhume the deceased body Exh.59 Yadi to medical officers to be present at place of exhume Exh.60 Copy of application no. 25/2001 at Police station in ‘B’ register Exh.61 Copy of application no. 34/2001 at Police station in ‘B’ register Exh.62 List of articles found from body of deceased during PM Exh.63 PSI LCB letter regarding non conducting of PM at Kutiyana and transferring to Jamnagar Gurugovind Singh Hospital Exh.64 Receipt f body after conducting of PM Exh.65 Medical officer yadi to PI LCB regarding collecting of blood sample of accused Devanand Punja and Rama devshi and forwarding the same p. 4 R/CR.A/1492/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/03/2026 Exh.66 Police yadi for medical examination of accused Exh.67 Copy of entry no. 17/01 dated 19-12-01 from Kutiyana police station Exh.68 Police yadi for map of place of offence Exh.69 FSL jamnagar yadi to PSI LCB regarding PM note and blood sample of deceased Exh.70 Notice regarding ban on weapons Exh.72 Medical officer letter Exh.75 Map of place of offense Exh.76 Mamlatdar letter no. Magi./2157/01 dated 12/01 Exh.77 Mamlatdar yadi for map of place of offence Exh.79 PM Note Exh.82 Missing register entry copy Exh.83 Copy of entry no.15 dated 18-12-01 from Kutiyana police station Exh.84 Special report Exh.85 Copy of missing register no. 3/01 from Kutiyana police station Exh.89 Police yadi Exh.90 Death form Exh.91 Police yadi regarding transferring of body to Jamnagar Exh.92 Police yadi Exh.93 Place of offence report conducted by Mobile Forensic laboratory Exh.94 Police yadi to FSL Exh.95 Articles forwarding notes Exh.96 FSL yadi Exh.97-98 Receipt of samples by FSL Exh.99 Mamlatdar yadi regarding creating and forwarding of map of place of offence Exh.100 FSL Junagadh report Exh.101 FSL report Exh.102 FSL report Exh.103 FSL report Exh.104 Forwarding letter Exh.105 Serological report Exh.106 IO report p. 5 R/CR.A/1492/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/03/2026 8. 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. 9. 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 ground that, the prosecution failed to prove the charge against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt and case based on the circumstantial evidence, the prosecution failed to establish each instance of incriminating circumstances by way of reliable and clinchin evidence and chain of circumstances, pointing towards the guilt of the accused is not complete. So far as charge of causing disappearance of evidence is concerned, the learned Trial Court held that there is no iota of evidence led by the prosecution to prove the charge under Section 201. 10. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this acquittal appeal has been preferred by the State. 11. In the facts of the present case, it is not in dispute that the death of the deceased Parbat was homicidal and there is no need to discuss the medical evidence on this aspect. Thus, the prosecution has succeeded in proving the facts that on or before 17.11.2001, the deceased Parbat was died and his death was homicidal. It is relevant to note that the principal accused Devanand Punja had a motive to kill the deceased because of local body election. The facts remain that pending p. 6 R/CR.A/1492/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/03/2026 the appeal, the accused no.1 Devanand Punja has passed away. In such circumstances, we do not deem it appropriate to decide the charge of murder as there was no charge against accused nos.2 to 5 for killing the deceased Parbat. The only charge against them is the act of causing disappearance of evidence as punishable under Section 201 of the IPC. 12. Mr.Ronal Raval, learned APP and Mr.Ashish Dagli, learned advocate have submitted that the findings of acquittal under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code are contrary to law and evidence on record and the findings recorded are palpably erroneous and based on the irrelevant material. The dead body of the deceased found from the farm of accused no.1. The accused nos.2 to 5 were in close association with accused no.1 and they on an often assembled at the farm of accused no.1 which clearly shows that respondents accused were responsible for the act of disappearance of the evidence and in order to screen the offence, the dead body was being buried by them. 13. 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 p. 7 R/CR.A/1492/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/03/2026 referred above. 14. Mr.A.U. Vohra, learned advocate appearing for the respondents accused have 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 entire prosecution case rests on the circumstantial evidence. The respondents accused had never been part of the crime committed by the accused no.1. The presence of the accused at the time of the offence, was not proved and established. Nothing incriminating found, connecting the accused in the alleged offence of causing disappearance of evidence and also no evidence to the effect that there was an intention on the part of the respondents accused to screen the accused no.1. In such circumstances, it is submitted that the findings of the acquittal are based on the evidence and prosecution failed to prove the charge under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code. 15. In such circumstances, referred to above, learned counsel appearing for the respondents accused, has submitted that the judgment of acquittal passed is well reasoned, legally sustainable and does not suffer any infirmity warranting interference by this Court. 16. 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 p. 8 R/CR.A/1492/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/03/2026 appeal is found to be perverse, the appellate court can interfere with the 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. 17. In the present case the issue falls for our consideration as to whether the trial Court was justified in acquitting the accused? 18. We have carefully examined the oral as well as documentary evidence and perused the findings of acquittal rendered by the Trial Court. We deem it appropriate to extract Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code for better appreciation. “201. Causing disappearance of evidence of offence, or giving false information to screen offender.— Whoever, knowing or having reason to believe that an offence has been committed, causes any evidence of the commission of that offence to disappear, with the intention of screening the offender from legal punishment, or with that intention gives any information respecting the offence which he knows or believes to be false, if a capital offence.—shall, if the offence which he knows or believes to have been committed is punishable with death be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine; if punishable with imprisonment for life.—and if the offence is punishable with 1 [imprisonment for life], or with imprisonment p. 9 R/CR.A/1492/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/03/2026 which may extend to ten years, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, and shall also be liable to fine; if punishable with less than ten years’ imprisonment.—and if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for any term not extending to ten years, shall be punished with imprisonment of the description provided for the offence, for a term which may extend to one-fourth part of the longest term of the imprisonment provided for the offence, or with fine, or with both.” 19. A bare reading of Section 201 of the IPC, it appears that in order to convict a person under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code, the prosecution has to establish the following ingredients: (A) That an offence has been committed; (B) That the accused knew or had reason to believe the commission of such offence; (C) That with such knowledge or belief, he/she; (i) caused any evidence of the commission of that offence to disappear; or (ii) gave any information in respect thereof that offence which he or she knew or believed to be false; (D) That he or she did so as aforesaid with the intention of screening the offender for legal punishment; 20. We may profitable the judgment of Palvinder Kaur Vs. State of Punjab (AIR 1952 Supreme Court 354), wherein the Supreme Court had said that in order to establish the charge under Section 201 of IPC, it is essentially to prove that an offence has been committed; that the accused knew or had a reason to believe that such offence had been p. 10 R/CR.A/1492/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/03/2026 committed; with requisite knowledge and with intent to screen the offender from legal punishment, caused the evidence thereof to disappear or gave a false information respecting such offence that the Court should safeguard itself again the danger of basing its conclusion on suspicion, however, strong they may be. In another case, Padmini Mahendrabhai Gadda Vs. State of Gujarat (2017 (14) SCC 587), the Supreme Court held that while considering the charge under Section 201 of IPC, it is mandatory for the prosecution to prove that the accused actually participated in the offence of disappearance of evidence, with an intention to screen the offender and it is necessary that all ingredients of Section 201 are satisfied pointing out at the guilt of the accused and mere a suspicion is not a sufficient and the accused can never be convicted on the basis of probabilities or on assumptions and presumptions. 21. In light of the aforesaid statutory provision and the law laid down by the Supreme Court, the issue required to be examined whether the respondents accused nos.2 to 5 have committed the offence under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code. 22. In the facts of the present case, the entire case rests on the circumstantial evidence. The prosecution witnesses as well as police official, have no personal knowledge about the presence of the accused at the field and the prosecution failed to prove the necessary circumstances to infer that the accused respondents were having knowledge about the commission of the murder and despite of their knowledge, they helped the principal accused in destroying the dead p. 11 R/CR.A/1492/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/03/2026 body with an intention to screening the principal accused for legal punishment. 23. In such circumstances, the prosecution failed to prove the charge against the respondents accused under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code beyond reasonable doubt. Thus, therefore, the view of the Trial Court is possible and plausible view and the Trial Court while analyzing the evidence has assigned cogent and sound reasons and findings of acquittal are reasonable and based on the evidence on record and we do not find any perversity in the findings of acquittal so as to interfere. Thus, in our considered opinion, the Trial Court was justified in acquitting the accused and we are in complete agreement with the findings, ultimate conclusion and resultant order of acquittal recorded by the Court below and hence finds no reason to interfere with the same. 24. 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) Rakesh p. 12 Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judges. Digitally signed by: RAKESH MAHESHKUMAR KOSHTI(HC00950), Principal Pvt. Secretary, at High Court of Gujarat on 07/03/2026 14:27:18