IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/CRIMINAL APPEAL (AGAINST CONVICTION) NO. 478 of 2017 With R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 926 of 2017 FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ILESH J. VORA and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. T. VACHHANI ========================================================== Approved for Reporting Yes No ========================================================== RANCHHOD @ RASO DAYALBHAI KANANI Versus STATE OF GUJARAT ========================================================== Appearance: CRIMINAL APPEAL No.478 of 2017: MR PRATIK BAROT WITH MS ALPA J DAVE(3924) for the Appellant. CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.926 OF 2017: MR TATVADEEP JANI for the Appellant. MR BHARGAV PANDYA APP for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1-State HARSHADKUMAR D PANCHAL(9015) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1. YUVRAJ B SOLANKI(8318) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1 ========================================================== CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ILESH J. VORA and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. T. VACHHANI Date : 10/02/2026 COMMON ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. T. VACHHANI) 1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 30.11.2016 passed by the learned 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Bhavnagar in Sessions Case No.52 of 2015 p. 1 for the offences punishable under Section 302 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, whereby the appellants – accused has been sentenced for the offence punishable under Section 302 and 34 of the IPC to undergo imprisonment for life with fine of Rs.15,000/-, in default, to undergo six months SI, the appellants have preferred the present appeal under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“the Code” for short). 2. The brief facts leading to the filing of the present appeal are as under: 2.1 That on 13.10.2017 in the morning at about 10.30 a phone call was received of one Pragjibhai who informed that Ashok who left residence since 4 O’ clock and had not still returned. It is stated that the complainant has also made enquiry about Ashok at various places. However his whereabouts were not found. It is stated that Ranjt, Ashok's friend who came and informed that Ashok lastly seen at Kumbharwada on Sunday and thereafter his whereabouts were not found. It is stated that one Ranjitbhai to whom the enquiry was made and he informed that lastly he came on Saturday and thereafter his whereabouts were not found. It is stated that one Manubhai who is Manager of the factory, informed that the motorcycle of Ashok was lying in Kumbharwada and thereafter one Dilipbhai Kanani, Vijay, Ajay Lalji and thereafter all went to Kumbharwada and found that Ashok motorcycle was lying there. It is stated that the complainant has thereafter called Hareshbhai and again made enquiry to the nearby places. It is stated that on further making enquiry to the wife of Ashok she informed that around 4 O'clock Ashok went outside and till 11.30 his phone was found on and conversation was made with him. However thereafter his whereabouts were not found and his phone was found switched off. It is also alleged that the friend of Ashok to whom the enquiry was made namely Ranjit, thereafter p. 2 Ranchhod then Gipin, Mukesh @ Munno, Ashish Sursang and when the enquiry was made with all, everybody was giving different versions, under the circumstances they were taken to the police station and wife of Ashok namely Bhavikaben had given missing entry. 2.2 It is alleged that 7 O'clock in the morning the friend of the complainant Jaisingbhai namely Dineshbhai and his uncle that dead body of Ashok is found near the motorcycle and thereafter all went to the place and found that dead body of Ashok was lying there. It is stated that thereafter post mortem was carried and the complaint was filed on suspicion that any of the six as referred in the FIR have committed the offence of murder. 2.3 Accordingly, FIR being CR No.119 of 2014 came to be registered with Bortalav Police Station. The Police after investigation charge- sheeted the accused for the aforesaid offences before the learned JMFC, Court. However, as the said Court lacks jurisdiction to try offence under Section 302 IPC, the case was committed to the Sessions Court. On conclusion of evidence on the part of the prosecution, the learned Sessions Court put various incriminating circumstances appearing in the evidence to the respondent-accused so as to obtain explanation/answer as provided under Section 313 of the Code. In the further statement, the respondents-accused denied all incriminating circumstances appearing against them as false and further stated that he is innocent and a false case has been filed against him. After examining the evidence, witness testimonies and submissions from both sides, the learned Sessions Court recorded the finding convicting the respondent-accused. 3. We have heard learned Advocate Mr.Pratik Barot for the appellant – convict – original accused No.1, learned Advocate Mr.Tatvadeep J Jani for the appellant – convict – original accused No.2 and learned APP for p. 3 the respondent-State and minutely examined oral and documentary evidence adduced and produced before the learned Sessions Court concerned. 4. Learned advocate Mr.Pratik Barot appearing for Ms.Alpa J Dave, learned advocate appearing for the appellant – original accused No.1 has submitted that in spite of PW 24 – Dilipbhai Jadavbhai Kanani cited as witness in the charge-sheet for the reasons best known to the prosecution, the said witness has not been examined by the prosecution; neither the prosecution has given any application to examine the said PW 24 as witness nor the learned Sessions Court has taken care to examine the said PW 24 as witness before the Court. He would further submit that no TI parade is held and therefore merely on the basis of suspicion the name of the appellant – accused No.1 was implicated. 4.1 He would further submit that since the entire case of the prosecution rests on the circumstantial evidence, the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond the reasonable doubt and does not prove that the entire chain and therefore, learned Sessions Court has erred in convicting the appellant – accused. It is further submitted that if the FIR in question is seen at the first instance, the complainant gave the name of the accused on the basis of the presumption of doubt and as such no specific role or description of the accused having seen at the place of offence pointing out the role of the accused in commission of the crime. It is therefore submitted that when the conduct of the prosecution witnesses are highly unnatural and improbable and inconsistent and therefore, learned Sessions Court ought to have awarded the benefit of doubt to the appellant – original accused No.1. 4.2 In support of his submissions, learned advocate Mr.BBarot has p. 4 relied upon the following case law and submit to allow the appeal of the appellant – original accused No.1. 1. K.P. Tamilmaran Versus State By Deputy Superintendent Of Police [2025 (0) AIJEL-SC 75170] 2. Harvinder Singh @ Bachhu Versus State Of Himachal Pradesh [2023 (0) AIJEL-SC 72607] 3. Mohd. Rijwan Versus State Of Haryana [2023 (0) AIJEL-SC 72606] 4. Rama Devi Versus State Of Bihar And Others [2024 (0) AIJEL-SC 74101] 5. Jayantibhai Chaturbhai Patel Versus State Of Gujarat [2025 (0) AIJEL - SC 76265] 6. Amrik Singh Versus State Of Punjab [2022 (0) AIJEL-SC 69513] 7. Ranvir Singh Versus State Of Madhya Pradesh [2023 (0) AIJEL- SC 70364] 8. P.Sasikumar Versus State Rep.By The Inspector Of Police [2024 (0) AIJEL-SC 73743] 9. Padman Bibhar Versus State Of Odisha [2025 (0) AIJEL-SC 75382] 10.Md. Bani Alam Mazid @ Dhan Versus State Of Assam [2025 (0) AIJEL-SC 74790] 11.Dinesh Kumar Versus State Of Haryana [2023 (0) AIJEL -SC 70975] 12.Arun Shankar Versus State Of Madhya Pradesh [2024 (0) AIJEL- SC 73526] 13.Ramy Appa Mahapatar Versus State Of Maharashtra [2025 (0) AIJEL-SC 74673]. 5. Learned Advocate Mr.Tatvadeep J Jani appearing for the appellant – original accused No.2 has submitted that org. accused No.2 was arraigned as an accused on the basis of the statement of the co-accused p. 5 which is not admissible in the eye of law. He would submit that there is no evidence or any circumstances from which it can be inferred that there was common intention of the appellant with other accused person to commit crime. He would submit that the entire prosecution case is based on the circumstantial evidence, the circumstances must be firmly established and the chain of circumstantial evidence must be completed from the facts. Whereas, in the case on hand, the chain of circumstances individually is not proved by the prosecution against the appellant. 5.1 He would further submit that the name of the present appellant was not mentioned in the complaint and six persons are named in the complaint who have assembled together with the deceased in the evening of the date of incident to consume liquor and out of those six persons who were present with the deceased, five persons are shown as prosecution witnesses. He would further submit that out of the six suspect who assembled with the deceased on the date of incident, the prosecution has examined PW 14-Ranjitbhai, PW 15-Ashokbhai, PW 16-Jipinbhai, However, no one has identified the appellant nor have they seen the present appellant on the date of the incident. He would submit that there is no recovery of discovery from the org. accused No.2 and no test identification parade of the appellant-org. accused No.2 was held. 5.2 It is further submitted that the case of the prosecution rests on the last seen together theory where no such independent witness is examined before the Court who have seen the deceased and the accused together prior to commission of the offence in question and therefore, it is submitted that present appeal may be allowed and the conviction and sentence recorded by the learned Sessions Court may be set aside. 5.3 By making the above submissions, learned advocate for the p. 6 appellants – accused would submit to allow this appeal and to quash and set aside the judgment and order of conviction and sentence. 6. Mr.Bhargav Pandya, learned APP appearing for the respondent – State submits that the impugned order of conviction and sentence does not require to be interfered with as the learned Sessions Court has after thorough appreciation of evidence has come to the conclusion and recorded the conviction of the appellant – accused on the basis of the evidence adduced before the Court. It is further submitted that the evidence produced on record proves the involvement of the accused in the commission of crime in question. He has further submitted that evidence of the witnesses examined before the Court has supported the case of prosecution and narrated the incident as it was happened. It was submitted that no such omission or contradiction in the evidence of the said witnesses have come on record to discard their evidence. He has further submitted that the prosecution witnesses have deposed before the Court narrating the entire chain of sequence whereby the involvement of the accused is proved which corroborates with the scientific evidence produced and proved by the prosecution and therefore, the judgment and order of conviction and sentence may not be interfered with. 7. Heard the learned Advocates appearing for the appellants – original accused Nos.1 and 2 and learned APP for the respondent – State and perused the deposition of witnesses as also documentary evidence placed on record as well as the order passed by the learned Sessions Court. 8. At the outset, if the case on hand is seen, it is a case of a circumstantial evidence and while leading the case, the prosecution is required to establish mainly three links of chain (i) motive; (ii) last seen; and (iii) recovery of weapon of assault, showing involvement of the p. 7 accused. Thus, while dealing with the evidence on record, the Court concerned is required to appreciate as to whether the aforesaid three aspect is completed to prove the case of prosecution or not and if no then the benefit of that would go to the accused as the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt while missing to complete the entire of circumstance. 9. Reverting to the facts of the case on hand is concerned, it is the case of prosecution that nephew of the complainant – Ashokbhai was working with PW No.20, 21, 22, 23 and 24 at the Diamond Factory and since on 12/10/2024 was holiday, PW No.24 and his uncle, org. accused No.1 went to take break-fast and after having returned the witnesses had gone to their residence whereas PW No.24 and deceased – Ashokbhai went to drop org. accused No.1 on the motorcycle and having reached near Kumbharvada Bathabhai Chowk, PW No.24 and org. accused No.1 had boarded off and went away; however in the meanwhile, org. accused No.2 came and they knew each other went with the deceased to eat non- veg food at Madhiya Road and in the night when accused persons had asked the deceased to give his motorcycle to bring liquor to which he had denied and by taking cause of such denial started quarrel, fall him on the ground and by inflicting stone on his head caused serious injuries and threw his dead body into the ditch and committed murder of the deceased. 10. 10. Now, in the above background of facts, if the evidence of the prosecution witnesses examined; the first and foremost aspect of the matter is that though PW 24 - Dilipbhai Jadavbhai Kanani cited as witness in the charge-sheet and lastly seen the deceased alive in the company of the present appellants – accused, for the reasons best known to the prosecution, the said witness has not been examined by the prosecution; neither the prosecution has given any application to examine p. 8 the said PW 24 as witness nor the learned Sessions Court has taken care to examine the said PW 24 as witness before the Court. 11. PW 12 – Rasikbhai Vaghabhai Vegad, complainant, is examined at Exh.35. Witness has deposed in his testimony that incident took place on 12/10/2014 and he came to know on 13/10/2014 at the factory. Witness has deposed that he was called by Premjibhai that Ashok left from the home at 4:00 O’clock yesterday but did not return and therefore he started searching for him. Witness has deposed in his testimony that he inquired with the Manager of the factory where he came to know that deceased did not come to work from the morning. This witness has deposed in his testimony that thereafter he went to factory where he met Ranjit, friend of Ashok who informed that yesterday evening he met and thereafter he did not see him. This witness has further deposed that meanwhile he received a phone call from the owner of the factory informing that one person had seen the motorcycle of Ashok and therefore they went there and inquired nearby areas. This witness has further deposed that upon asked wife of Ashok she stated that yesterday at 4:00 O’clock he went away by saying to wash his bike and did not return upto late night and thereafter his phone came switched off. This witness has further deposed that thereafter they inquired with the friends of Ashok viz., Ranjit @ Laden who stated that Dilip Jadav Kanani and his uncle Ranchhod Dayal Kanani was accompanied and therefore they were also called. Witness has further deposed that Jipin Meru Baraiya, Munno @ Mukesh Kanu Kanani and Ashok Sursang Solanki were also called and inquiry was made and thereafter they went to Police Station where the missing entry was registered. This witness has further deposed that on the next day his friend Dineshbhai and Jesingbhai son of his uncle called him informing that dead body of Ashok was found from the place where the bike was recovered and therefore they went and found one dead body in the ditch p. 9 of water. Police came there and dead body was identified of his nephew. Witness has deposed that he gave complaint. This witness has further deposed that Police called and informed him that one Ranchhod Dayal and Hitesh @ Ganjro quarreled with his nephew for taking snacks and by inflicting blows on his head caused his murder and threw his dead body in the ditch of water. This witness has been cross-examined at length where he admitted that he did not met Ranchhod prior to incident and he had seen him at D-Division on 13th and therefore he identified him. This witness has admitted that in the complaint dated 14/10/2014 he did not give name of accused No.2 – Hitesh and he never met him. Witness has also admitted that he used to frequently visit residence of Ashok; but was not in contact with his any of the friend. Thus, the evidence of this witness does not inspire any confidence to show the actual involvement of the accused in commission of the crime. This witness himself has admitted that Police called and informed him about the accused committed murder of his nephew and he did not even give name of org. accused No.2. It also appears from the evidence of this witness that this witness has no personal knowledge about occurrence of the incident and on the basis of hearsay the complaint was registered. 12. PW 14 – Ranjitbhai Natubhai Khokhani, has been examined at Exh.43. This witness has deposed in his testimony that he was working in the diamond factory with Dilipbhai, Ashokbhai Sodhi, Munno and Jipinbhai. This witness has deposed in his testimony that he stated the facts of the occurrence of the incident before the Police which he came to know from hearsay. He also deposed that he came to know that deceased – Ashok was killed by Ranchhod and Hitesh. This witness has deposed that he knew Ranchhodbhai; but did not know Hiteshbhai and did not see p. 10 him earlier. From the evidence of this witness, it appears that earlier at the time of filing of the complaint, his name was shown as suspect and thereafter he was shown as witness and this witness has also deposed that facts stated by him was known to him from hearsay. 13. PW No.15 – Ashokbhai Sursangbhai Solanki is examined at Exh.44. Witness has not supported the case of prosecution and therefore he was declared hostile. 14. PW No.16 – Jipinbhai Merubhai Baraiya is examined at Exh.46. This witness has deposed in his testimony that he was called at the Police Station and as per the information he came to know, he stated it before the Police. This witness has deposed that he did not know accused No.2 and therefore unable to identify him. From the evidence of this witness, it appears that he does not have any personal knowledge or information and his evidence can be said to be hearsay evidence and therefore does not inspire any confidence. 15. PW No.17 – Budhabhai Ganeshbhai Parmar is examined at Exh.47. This witness has deposed in his testimony that he came to know about the occurrence of the incident and this witness also does not have any personal information about the occurrence of the incident. This witness is also not known to accused No.2 – Hitesh. As stated earlier, this witness also does not have any personal knowledge or information and his evidence can be said to be hearsay evidence and therefore does not inspire any confidence. 16. PW No.18 – Bhaveshbhai Gohel is examined at Exh.48. This witness has lastly seen the deceased with the accused however the witness has not supported the case of prosecution, he was declared p. 11 hostile. 17. PW No.19 – Bhanuben Ashokbhai Vegad, wife of the deceased is examined at Exh.49. From the evidence of this witness, it appears that she does not have any personal information and there was no dispute of any nature of her husband with anyone. This witness has deposed that she has not seen accused No.2 and does not identify him. 18. Thus, as can be seen from the evidence of the above witnesses upon which the heavy reliance has been placed by the learned Sessions Court to record the conviction of the appellants-accused, no direct evidence to link the accused with the crime in question emerged and the persons who were shown to be suspect later on shown as witness. None of the above witnesses have any personal knowledge or information about the occurrence of the incident. The learned Sessions Judge has materially erred in relying upon the evidence of these witness as the involvement of the appellants – accused is not proved in commission of the crime in question from the evidence of these witnesses. 19. In light of the appreciation of the aforesaid evidence, it appears that this is not a case where the entire chain of circumstantial evidence is completed as required under the law so as to indicate the guilt of the accused and also exclude any other theory of crime. In the case on hand, the learned Sessions Judge has erred to notice such aspect as to whether any such motive is proved by the prosecution as alleged since the prime witness PW 24 who had lastly seen the deceased alive was for the reasons known to the prosecution was not examined, as also PW No.18 has not supported the case of prosecution and declared hostile. Likewise, none of the witnesses have any personal information / knowledge about the occurrence of the incident and failed to name to the accused persons, p. 12 more particularly, accused No.2 and identify him before the Court and thus the entire story of the prosecution comes under the shadow of doubt. 20. In view of the details discussed in the foregoing paragraphs, in consonance with the material placed for consideration as relied upon by the prosecution and confronted by the defence, and having regard to the conclusion arrived at by the learned Sessions Judge, it is undisputed that, as elaborately discussed hereinabove, the entire case of the prosecution rests solely on circumstantial evidence. Recently, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Shail Kumari v. State of Chhattisgarh, reported in 2025 (0) AIJEL-SC 75681, while considering the judgment in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, reported in (1984) 4 SCC 116 has held that prosecution must stand and fall on its own legs and in case of circumstantial evidence, the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency and they should be such as to exclude every hypothesis but the one proposed to be proved. In other words, there must be a chain of evidence so far complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion consistence with the innocence of the accused and it must be such as to show that within all human probability the act must have been done by the accused. 21. In a case of circumstantial evidence, the chain is required to be completed as mandated under the law so as to indicate the guilt of the accused while discarding any other theory of the crime. If one of the link goes missing and not proved, in view of the settled law on the point, the conviction is required to be interfered with. At this stage, with profit, we may refer to the decision in case of Laxman Prasad Alias Laxman vs. State of Madhya Pradesh [(2023) 6 SCC 399] where the Hon’ble Apex Court after referring to Sharad Birdhichand Sarda vs. State of Maharashtra [(1984) 4 SCC 116] and Shailendra Rajdev Pasvan vs. p. 13 State of Gujarat [(2020) 14 SCC 750] has quashed the conviction by making observations in paragraph 2 to 4 as under: “2. The present one is a case of circumstantial evidence. The prosecution led evidence to establish three links of the chain: (i) motive, (ii) last seen, and (iii) recovery of weapon of assault, at the pointing out of the appellant. The High Court, while dealing with the evidence on record, agreed with the finding of motive and the last seen, however, insofar as the recovery of the weapon of assault and bloodstained clothes were concerned, the High Court in para 18 of the judgment held the same to be invalid and also goes to the extent to say that the recovery which has been made does not indicate that the appellant has committed the offence. Still, it observed that looking to the entire gamut and other clinching evidence against the appellant of last seen and motive, affirmed the conviction. 3. We do not find such conclusion of the High Court to be strictly in accordance with law. In a case of circumstantial evidence, the chain has to be complete in all respects so as to indicate the guilt of the accused and also exclude any other theory of the crime. The law is well settled on the above point. Reference may be had to the following cases: (1) Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, (ii) Shailendra Rajdev Pasvan v. State of Gujarat. 4. Thus, if the High Court found one of the links to be missing and not proved in view of the settled law on the point, the conviction ought to have been interfered with.” 22. In view of the settled law that one must look for a complete chain of circumstances and not on snapped and scattered links which do not p. 14 make a complete sequence. The circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is drawn should be fully proved, and such circumstances must be conclusive in nature. Moreover, all the circumstances should be complete, and there should be no gap left in the chain of evidence; in the present case, the chain is not completed. 23. Furthermore, the prosecution has though shown number of witnesses in the charge-sheet, but for the reasons best known to the prosecution has not examined certain witnesses, more particularly, PW No.24, who seems to have been portrayed as prime witness to link the chain of circumstance. However, as noted above, for the reasons best known to the prosecution, this witness has not been examined; nor any care seems to have been taken to see the reasons behind non-examination of the witness which ultimately proves fatal to the case of prosecution. It also appears from the record that prosecution has not proved the place of occurrence and no such call details either of the deceased or the suspect to link the accused with the crime has been called for or examined by the prosecution. It also appears from the record that there is no eyewitness to the incident and based on suspicion, the complainant lodged an FIR against the present appellants, and the arrest was made based on suspicion; there was no concrete material against the appellants to prove their involvement in the commission of crime and merely on the suspicion their involvement was tried to have been shown which cannot take the place of evidence. 24. From the evidence so produced by the prosecution and as examined by the learned Sessions Court, the prosecution does not appear to be successful in proving its case which is based on circumstantial evidence on last seen together theory as the person who had last seen the accused with the deceased declared hostile and though it was the case of p. 15 circumstantial evidence the prosecution has not proved any motive behind the commission of crime and therefore the evidence of the witnesses who have no personal knowledge or information about the commission of crime have deposed before the court on hearsay and therefore, their evidence would not be helpful to the prosecution to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt. 25. 25. In light of the above legal position and for the reasons recorded in the foregoing paragraphs, coupled with the fact that the case of the prosecution does not get support from the evidence recorded by the learned Sessions Court, the present appeals deserve to be allowed and are accordingly allowed. The judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 30.11.2016 passed by the learned 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Bhavnagar in Sessions Case No.52 of 2015 for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code is quashed and set aside. The appellants are acquitted of the charges levelled against them. 25.1 The appellants are ordered to be set at liberty, forthwith, if not required in any other case. 25.2 Bail Bond shall stand discharged. Records and Proceedings, if any, be remitted to the Court concerned forthwith. (ILESH J. VORA,J) (R. T. VACHHANI, J) sompura p. 16 Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judges. Digitally signed by: MANISHKUMAR JYOTINDRA SOMPURA(HC00189), Principal Pvt. Secretary, at High Court of Gujarat on 10/02/2026 11:49:50