As per case facts, the Informant accused her husband (Appellant) of sexually abusing their minor daughter, leading to his conviction under POCSO and IPC. The Informant and victim left the ...
R/CR.A/670/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/02/2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL (AGAINST CONVICTION) NO. 670 of
2020
With
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 24 of 2020
With
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 899 of 2020
With
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 775 of 2022
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ILESH J. VORA
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. T. VACHHANI
====================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
====================================================
RATANLAL BHERUMAL JAIN
Vs.
STATE OF GUJARAT
====================================================
Appearance:
Criminal Appeal Nos.670 and 899 of 2020:
MR PRATIK B BAROT(3711) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
Criminal Appeal Nos.24 of 2020:
MR KASHYAP R JOSHI(2133) for: Appellant(s) 1
MR RONAK B. RAVAL, APP for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1
====================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ILESH J. VORA
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. T. VACHHANI
Date : 09/02/2026
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. T. VACHHANI)
Page 1 of 34
R/CR.A/670/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/02/2026
1.These present appeals arise out of the judgment and order dated
17.09.2019 passed by the learned 3
rd
Additional learned Sessions Court,
Ankleshwar, in Sessions Case No.7 of 2015. Criminal Appeal No.670 of
2020 and Criminal Appeal No.899 of 2020 are filed by the convicted
accused persons under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973 (for short, "Cr.P.C."), challenging their conviction and sentence.
Criminal Appeal No.24 of 2020 is filed by the original complainant under
Section 372 of the Cr.P.C., challenging the acquittal of certain accused
persons. Criminal Appeal No.775 of 2022 is filed by the State under
Section 378(1)(3) of the Cr.P.C., also challenging the acquittal of accused
persons who were acquitted by the learned Sessions Court. Since all these
appeals stem from the same trial and involve common facts, evidence,
questions of law and have been heard together, they are being disposed of
by this common judgment.
2.The brief facts leading to the filing of present appeals are as under:
2.1.The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 13.06.2014, around 9:00
p.m., at the residence of the complainant Satishbhai Somabhai Patel in
Nava Borbhatha, Taluka Ankleshwar, District Bharuch, a group of
accused persons, armed with deadly weapons such as dhariya (sharp-
edged weapon), sword, farsa (axe-like weapon), and axe, unlawfully
assembled and trespassed into the complainant's compound by opening
the main gate. They allegedly attacked the family members in a fit of rage
stemming from a prior quarrel between children during Holi celebrations.
2.2.Specifically, it is alleged that: (i) Mukeshbhai Lallubhai Vasava
struck the complainant's father Somabhai on the head with a dhariya; (ii)
Bhagvatbhai Vasava and Ratanbhai Marwadi (Ratanlal Bherumal Jain)
Page 2 of 34
R/CR.A/670/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/02/2026
assaulted the complainant's uncle Arvindbhai Haribhai Patel with a farsa
and dhariya, leading to his death; (iii) Pratik Govindbhai Rathod hit the
complainant's son Nikunj on the head with a sword; (iv) Lallubhai
Vasava and Mahendrabhai Madhavbhai Patel injured Sureshbhai
Bhikhabhai Patel on his right leg with a dhariya; (v) Mukeshbhai
Lallubhai Vasava struck the complainant's wife Alpaben on the shoulder
with the blunt side of a dhariya; and (vi) Maheshbhai Vasava hit the
complainant's mother Chanchalben on the shoulder with the wooden
handle of a dhariya. Govindbhai Thakorbhai Rathod was also part of the
armed mob.
2.3.The assailants raised shouts and fled the scene. The injured,
including the complainant and his son Nikunj (with grievous injuries),
were rushed to Global Hospital, while Somabhai, Arvindbhai, and
Sureshbhai were taken to Baroda Hospital, Bharuch. Arvindbhai was
declared dead on arrival.
2.4.The incident was reported by the complainant at Ankleshwar City
Police Station, registered as C.R. No.I-82/2014 under Sections 147, 148,
149, 302, 307, 326, 325, 323, 427, 450, 504, and 120-B of the Indian
Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). Investigation ensued, including inquest
panchnama, scene of crime panchnama, post-mortem of the deceased,
recovery of clothes and weapons from the accused, recording of witness
statements, and preparation of a site map. Accused Nos.2 and 3 were
undertrial prisoners during the proceedings.
2.5.Upon completion of investigation, a charge sheet was filed before
the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ankleshwar, who
committed the case to the learned Sessions Court under Section 209 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.), as the offences were
Page 3 of 34
R/CR.A/670/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/02/2026
exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions. Charges were framed against
the accused under the aforesaid sections, which they denied, pleading not
guilty and claiming trial.
2.6.After the completion of trial, wherein the prosecution examined
witnesses and produced documentary evidence, and the defence presented
its case, the learned 3
rd
Additional Sessions Judge, Ankleshwar, by
judgment and order dated 17.09.2019 in Sessions Case No.7 of 2015,
convicted accused No.2 Bhagwatbhai Thakorebhai Vasava (appellant in
Criminal Appeal No.899 of 2020) and accused No.3 Ratanlal Bherumal
Jain (appellant in Criminal Appeal No.670 of 2020) under Section 302 of
the IPC and sentenced each of them to undergo life imprisonment along
with a fine of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only), in default of
payment of fine, to further undergo three months' rigorous imprisonment.
Additionally, both were convicted under Section 450 of the IPC and
sentenced to one year's simple imprisonment along with a fine of
Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand only), in default of payment of fine, to
further undergo one month's simple imprisonment. The sentences were
directed to run concurrently under Section 31(1) of the Cr.P.C., with the
benefit of set-off under Section 428 of the Cr.P.C. for the period already
undergone in custody.
2.7.The learned Sessions Court, however, acquitted accused No.1
Mahendrabhai Madhavbhai Patel, accused No.4 Govindbhai Thakorbhai
Rathod, accused No.5 Pratik Kumar Govindbhai Rathod, accused No.6
Maheshbhai Uttambhai Vasava, accused No.7 Bharatbhai Mohanbhai
Vasava, accused No.8 Lallubhai Mohanbhai Vasava, and accused No.9
Mukeshbhai Lallubhai Vasava of all charges under Section 235(1) of the
Cr.P.C., holding that the prosecution failed to prove their involvement
beyond reasonable doubt.
Page 4 of 34
R/CR.A/670/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/02/2026
2.8.Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and order, the accused No.3
has preferred Criminal Appeal Nos.670 of 2020 and the accused No.2 has
899 of 2020 challenging their conviction and sentence, while the original
complainant has filed Criminal Appeal No.24 of 2020 and the State has
filed Criminal Appeal No.775 of 2022 challenging the acquittal of the
remaining accused. Hence, these appeals are before us for consideration.
3.We have heard the learned advocates for the respective parties and
carefully examined the oral and documentary evidence adduced before
the learned Sessions Court. During the course of the trials, the
prosecution examined witnesses and produced documents as detailed
below:
~:: Oral Evidence of Prosecution ::~
P.W.
No.
Particular (Witness)
Exh.
No.
1. Nareshkumar Sureshbhai Patel 27
2. Hirenbhai Chhitubhai Patel 29
3. Ketanbhai Prafulbhai Patel 31
4. Chintanbhai Ambubhai Ahir 39
5. Jiteshkumar Ambalal Patel 42
6. Rameshbhai Ramjibhai Patel 49
7. Hasmukhbhai Bhagwanbhai Patel 52
8. Satishbhai Somabhai Patel 61
9. Ramanbhai Madhavbhai Patel 71
10.Sombhai Ratanjibhai Patel 72
11.Rameshbhai Mohanbhai Patel 73
12.Sureshbhai Bhikhabhai Patel 75
13.Natvarbhai Chhotubhai Limbachiya 76
14.Nikunj Satishbhai Patel 77
15.Chanchalben Somabhai Patel 78
Page 5 of 34
R/CR.A/670/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/02/2026
P.W.
No.
Particular (Witness)
Exh.
No.
16.Alpanaben Satishbhai Patel 80
17.Anjanaben Anilbhai Patel 82
18.Dhrumilbhai Anilbhai Patel 83
19.Mohitbhai Satishbhai Patel 94
20.Mayank Kumar Ambubhai Patel 95
21.Ramilaben Arvindbhai Patel 106
22.Dr. Sheetal Kundanlal Ehari 107
23.Dr. Deepakbhai Chimanbhai Parekh 108
24.Dr. Yoginiben Rameshbhai Patel 124
25.Daaudbhai Valibhai Mansuri 128
26.Dr. Vishal Jagadishchandra Maurya 130
27.Dr. Pritiben Janardan Patel 137
28.Chandubhai Khalpabhai Rana 139
29.Mahavirsinh Jashubha Rana 144
30.Manojbhai Keshavbharti Swami 145
~:: Documentary Evidence of Prosecution ::~
Sr. No. Particular (Document)
Exh.
No.
1.
Original Inquest Panchnama of deceased
Arvindbhai Patel
28
2.
Original Panchnama of weapons seized from
accused
30
3.
Original Panchnama of clothes of injured persons
seized
32
4.
Original Panchnama of weapons seized from the
accused
40
5.
Original Panchnama of seizure of clothes of
deceased from the accused
43
6. Yadi for crime scene map 50
7. Crime scene map 51
8.
Original Panchnama of samples collected from
crime scene
58
Page 6 of 34
R/CR.A/670/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/02/2026
Sr. No. Particular (Document)
Exh.
No.
9.
Original Panchnama of seized tempo No. GJ 16
(V) 5147
59
10.Original complaint 62
11.Photograph of complainant Satishbhai Patel65 to 69
12.Original Panchnama of accused's weapon seized94
13.Yadi for performing post-mortem examination108
14.Original post-mortem report of deceased 109
15.
Original injury certificate of Somabhai R. Patel
(injured)
113
16.
Original injury certificate of Sureshbhai
Bhikhabhai Patel
114
17.Original injury certificate of Satishbhai H. Patel115
18.Injury certificate of Nikunjbhai Satishbhai Patel116
19.Certified copy of station diary 129
20.
CT scan report of Nikunj Patel (Sunshine
Hospital)
131
21.Letter from FSL regarding muddamal 146
22.Original FSL biological test report 147
23.Original FSL serological test report 148
24.FSL scene of offence report 149
~:: Defense Oral Evidence ::~
D.W.
No.
Particular (Witness)
Exh.
No.
1.Dr. Hemaben V. Acharya (Scientific Officer)156
2.
Ketanbhai Nagjibhai Mahadeviya (Assistant
Geologist)
178
3.Ishwarsinh Thakorbhai Patel (MLA, Ankleshwar)183
4.
Jaideep Sarojkumar Bhavsar (Junior Clerk
Geological Survey)
185
5.Shivaji Shankararao Vaagh (Mamlatdar) 196
6.Kajalben Amaratbhai Vaagh (Talati cum Mantri)200
7.Jigneshbhai Ganeshbhai Amin (P.I.) 205
Page 7 of 34
R/CR.A/670/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/02/2026
D.W.
No.
Particular (Witness)
Exh.
No.
8.Ratubhai Kesarbhai Dhulia (P.I.) 210
~:: Defense Documentary Evidence ::~
Sr. No. Particular (Document)
Exh.
No.
1. Complaint filed by Assistant Geologist 163
2. Property seizure form 164
3. Letter sent to P.I. by Royalty Inspector 165
4.
Map of excavation measurement of farm of
Mohanbhai Varsangbhai Vasava
166
5. Excavation measurement map 167
6.
Map of measurement of farm of Sahadev
Bhanabhai Vasava
168
7. Excavation measurement map 169
8. Notice of seized property 170
9. Notice of seized property 171
10.Notice of seized property 172
11.
Notice issued by Ankleshwar Court om
CR.MA.No.25/12
173
12.
Notice issued by Ankleshwar Court om
CR.MA.No.25/12
174
13.Reply to notice given by Sombhai Ratanbhai Patel175
14.
Reply to notice given by Mohanbhai Barsangbhai
Vasava
176
15.
Reply to notice given by Sahadevbhai Bhanabhai
Vasava
177
16.Daily work on unauthorized soil excavation179
17.Daily work on unauthorized soil excavation180
18.
Letter to Revenue Minister regarding illegal
mining
184
19.
Recovery letter dated 29.03.2008 from Assistant
Geologist to recover Rs.88,07,240/-
186
20.Letter dated 11.11.2008 from Assistant Geologist,187
Page 8 of 34
R/CR.A/670/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/02/2026
Sr. No. Particular (Document)
Exh.
No.
Bharuch
21.
Challan of Rs.88,07,240/- deposited by
Vrijeshbhai
188
22.Illegal soil mining application form 201
23.
Panchayat resolution regarding damage caused by
land and soil work
202
24.
FIR registered at Ankleshwar City Police Station
bearing II-C.R. No.56/2013
206
25.
FIR registered at Ankleshwar City Police Station
bearing I-C.R. No.59/2017
207
26.
FIR registered at Ankleshwar City Police Station
bearing II-C.R. No.53/2014
208
27.
FIR registered at Ankleshwar City Police Station
bearing II-C.R. No.27/2014
209
28.
FIR registered at Ankleshwar GIDC Police Station
bearing C.R. No.127/1996
211
29.
FIR registered at Ankleshwar GIDC Police Station
bearing C.R. No.176/1998
212
30.
Borbhatha, Ankleshwar Assembly Voter List for
the year 2014
214
4.Heard Mr. Pratik B. Barot, learned advocate for the appellants in
Criminal Appeal Nos.670 of 2020 and 899 of 2020 (conviction appeals),
Mr. Kashyap R. Joshi, learned advocate for the appellant in Criminal
Appeal No.24 of 2020 (complainant's appeal against acquittal), and
learned APP for the State in all appeals, including Criminal Appeal
No.775 of 2022 (State's appeal against acquittal). We have carefully
considered the submissions, perused the record, and examined the cited
decisions.
5.Submissions on behalf of the Convicted Appellants (Criminal
Appeal Nos.670 and 899 of 2020)
Page 9 of 34
R/CR.A/670/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/02/2026
5.1.Mr. Pratik B. Barot, learned advocate for the appellants (original
accused Nos.2 and 3), vehemently contended that the learned
Sessions Court's conviction under Sections 302 and 450 of the IPC
is unsustainable on multiple grounds. He submitted that the case
rests on direct evidence, primarily the testimony of Somabhai
Ratanjibhai Patel (PW-10, Exh.-72), who is projected as the star
witness, but whose evidence is riddled with inconsistencies and
lacks corroboration. Pointing to the charge, he argued that the
alleged motive a prior dispute during Holi celebrations between
children is not substantiated, as confirmed by the investigating
officers, who admitted no material was gathered to support it.
5.2.The learned advocate emphasized that the occurrence took place at
night in a compound area, involving nine accused, yet the learned
Sessions Court acquitted seven while convicting only the
appellants based on the same evidence. He submitted that
Somabhai Ratanjibhai Patel's (PW-10, Exh.-72) testimony is
unreliable, as the court disbelieved his account of his own injury
(inflicted by accused No.9 Mukeshbhai Lallubhai Vasava) due to
lack of medical corroboration, invoking the principle of falsus in
uno falsus in omnibus. He argued that this disbelief taints the entire
testimony, especially since no phone call evidence links accused
No.7 (Bharatbhai Mohanbhai Vasava) to summoning others, as
admitted by Somabhai Ratanjibhai Patel (PW-10, Exh.-72).
5.3.Mr. Barot further highlighted the variance between ocular and
medical evidence. Referring to the post-mortem report (Exh.-109),
he pointed out only one visible injury on the deceased's head a
contused lacerated wound (CLW) with a depressed frontal bone
Page 10 of 34
R/CR.A/670/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/02/2026
fracture causing death due to extradural hemorrhage. However,
Somabhai Ratanjibhai Patel (PW-10, Exh.-72) and other witnesses
(Ramanbhai Madhavbhai Patel (PW-9, Exh.-71), Sureshbhai
Bhikhabhai Patel (PW-12, Exh.-75), and Natvarbhai Chhotubhai
Limbachiya (PW-13, Exh.-76) attributed two separate blows to the
head by the appellants using sharp weapons (farsa and dhariya).
The PM doctor, Dr. Sheetal Kundanlal Ehari (PW-22, Exh.-107),
confirmed in cross-examination that bruises/contusions are caused
by blunt objects, not sharp-edged weapons, ruling out the
prosecution's version. He argued that when witnesses attribute
sharp weapons like axes or spears without clarifying blunt-side
use, the medical evidence of blunt injuries falsifies their account.
No clarification was sought from witnesses that the blunt side was
used, leading to only blunt injuries (CLWs and bruises) on the
deceased, not sharp cuts.
5.4.The learned advocate argued that the incident was a fight in a
dimly lit compound at 9:00 p.m., lasting 10 minutes, with multiple
armed persons assaulting in commotion, making specific
attribution impossible (Somabhai Ratanjibhai Patel (PW-10, Exh.-
72); Sureshbhai Bhikhabhai Patel (PW-12, Exh.-75); Natvarbhai
Chhotubhai Limbachiya (PW-13, Exh.-76). He submitted that the
evidence is inseparable, and applying falsus in uno falsus in
omnibus warrants acquittal of the appellants, as conviction on self-
same unreliable evidence for one accused should be set aside after
acquittal of co-accused, emphasizing difficulty in identifying
assailants in a dark-night melee with armed persons; and holding
that where truth and falsehood are inextricably linked, the entire
evidence must be discarded unless separable.
Page 11 of 34
R/CR.A/670/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/02/2026
5.5.Mr. Barot pointed to enmity proved by seven defense witnesses,
including illegal sand mining complaints against Somabhai
Ratanjibhai Patel's (PW-10, Exh.-72) family, leading to an Rs.88
lakh penalty (Exh.-187, Hemaben V. Acharya (DW-1, Exh.-156).
Accused No.2 (appellant Bhagwatbhai) was a panchayat member
agitating against Somabhai Ratanjibhai Patel (PW-10, Exh.-72),
providing motive for false implication. He noted the brain mapping
report (Exh.-155) favoring the appellants, indicating no knowledge
of the incident, though not evidentiary, it supports the defense
when read with totality. Weapons and clothes were not sent to FSL
(as admitted by the investigating officer), further creating doubt.
5.6.Characterizing Somabhai Ratanjibhai Patel (PW-10, Exh.-72) as
falling in the third category (partly reliable, partly unreliable), he
argued conviction requires corroboration, absent here from
medical/FSL evidence or other independent sources. Ramanbhai
Madhavbhai Patel (PW-9, Exh.-71) and Natvarbhai Chhotubhai
Limbachiya (PW-13, Exh.-76) positioned themselves outside the
compound (Somabhai Ratanjibhai Patel (PW-10, Exh.-72);
Ramanbhai Madhavbhai Patel (PW-9, Exh.-71); Natvarbhai
Chhotubhai Limbachiya (PW-13, Exh.-76), reducing their
reliability. Multiple antecedents against Somabhai Ratanjibhai
Patel (PW-10, Exh.-72) (DW-6, Exhs.-206-208) impeach his
credibility. In cross-examination, witnesses admitted collective
assault without specificity (Somabhai Ratanjibhai Patel (PW-10,
Exh.-72); Ramanbhai Madhavbhai Patel (PW-9, Exh.-71);
Sureshbhai Bhikhabhai Patel (PW-12, Exh.-75), and no accused
sustained injuries, suggesting suppressed genesis.
5.7.In the alternative, if conviction stands, he urged conversion to
Page 12 of 34
R/CR.A/670/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/02/2026
Section 304 Part I IPC, given single head injury, no premeditation,
and 10 years 5 months already undergone, citing sudden
commotion without intent to kill. He argued on medical
contradictions demolishing interested witnesses' accounts, and for
extending benefit on crumbled backbone evidence.
5.8.In support of his arguments, the following cases are relied upon:
Sr.
No.
Citation Case Number Date
1 2023 (0) AIJEL-SC
70553
CR.A/211/202303.03.2023
2 2025 (0) AIJEL-SC
74754
CR.A/127/2014,
CR.A/126/2014
11.02.2025
3 2025 (0) AIJEL-SC
75020
CR.A/3318/202304.04.2025
4 2025 (0) AIJEL-SC
76207
CR.A/305/202427.11.2025
5 2024 (0) AIJEL-SC
73772
CR.A/2038/201709.07.2024
6 2025 (0) AIJEL-SC
74525
CR.A/118/201306.01.2025
7 2024 (0) AIJEL-SC
74038
CR.A/314/2012,
CR.A/2623/2014
18.09.2024
8 2024 (0) AIJEL-SC
74101
CR.A/2631/2014,
CR.A/2632/2014,
CR.A/2640/2014
03.10.2024
9 2004 (0) AIJEL-SC
19075
CR.A/1177/199704.02.2004
10 1974 (0) AIJEL-SC
10468
CR.A/142/197019.03.1974
11 2023 (0) AIJEL-SC
72811
CR.A/2300/200908.11.2023
6.Submissions on behalf of the Complainant (Criminal Appeal
No.24 of 2020)
Page 13 of 34
R/CR.A/670/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/02/2026
6.1.Mr. Kashyap R. Joshi, learned advocate for the complainant-
appellant, submitted that the learned Sessions Court's acquittal of
original accused Nos.1,4,5,6,7,8, and 9 is perverse and warrants
reversal. He argued that the evidence clearly establishes an
unlawful assembly under Sections 147-149 of the IPC, with a
common object to commit murder and cause grievous hurt, arising
from deep-seated enmity over illegal mining complaints against the
complainant's family, which the learned Sessions Court itself
acknowledged in the impugned judgment. He emphasized that all
nine accused persons, armed with deadly weapons such as dhariya,
sword, farsa, and axe, unlawfully trespassed into the complainant's
compound and launched a collective assault on the family,
resulting in the death of Arvindbhai Haribhai Patel and grievous
injuries to six others, namely Somabhai Ratanjibhai Patel (PW-10,
Exh.-72), the complainant Satishbhai Somabhai Patel (PW-8, Exh.-
61), Nikunj Satishbhai Patel (PW-14, Exh.-77), Sureshbhai
Bhikhabhai Patel (PW-12, Exh.-75), Alpanaben Satishbhai Patel
(PW-16, Exh.-80), and Chanchalben Somabhai Patel (PW-15,
Exh.-78).
6.2.The learned advocate highlighted the strength of the prosecution's
case, pointing to 13 eyewitnesses, including 6 injured witnesses
(PWs 8,10,12,14,15,16), out of which 11 consistently named all
nine accused in their testimonies (as per a prepared chart; only
PW-8 omitted reference to accused No.7, and PW-14 was
somewhat vague on certain details). He contended that these
versions remained unshaken in cross-examination and are fully
corroborated by medical evidence, where the injuries match the
attributed weapons, as well as by panchnamas and the credent
Page 14 of 34
R/CR.A/670/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/02/2026
testimonies of panch witnesses (PWs 1,2,5,7,11). According to
him, the learned Sessions Court erred in acquitting the seven
accused by deeming the injury certificates doubtful, while ignoring
their overt acts, presence in the armed mob, and the common
object of the assembly. He argued that minor discrepancies do not
undermine the consistent substratum of the prosecution's narrative.
He further submitted that the established enmity provides a clear
motive for the attack, rather than a basis for false implication, as no
outsiders were named despite ongoing village disputes.
6.3.Learned advocate Mr.Joshi contended that Section 149 of the IPC
applies even in the absence of individual overt acts, so long as the
accused were part of the unlawful assembly and knew that murder
was likely to be committed in prosecution of the common object,
where conviction under Section 302/149 was upheld despite
injuries inflicted in a group assault. He described the incident as
premeditated, lasting about 10 minutes in a well-lit compound (as
confirmed by witnesses), initiated by accused No.7's quarrel with
PW-10 followed by summoning the others. The brain mapping
report was rightly discarded as non-evidentiary. He urged that the
acquittal overlooks the collective nature of the assault on the entire
family, the presence of blood at the scene, and FSL corroboration,
asserting that two persons alone could not have caused such
widespread injuries. Therefore, all accused should be convicted
under Sections 302/149, 307/149, etc., of the IPC.
6.4.On the conviction appeals (Nos.670 and 899 of 2020), the learned
advocate supported the learned Sessions Court's findings,
submitting that PW-10's testimony is reliable and corroborated by
PWs 9,12,13, as well as medical evidence showing the fatal head
Page 15 of 34
R/CR.A/670/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/02/2026
injury matching the farsa and dhariya used by the convicted
accused. He argued that the evidence inspires confidence,
particularly in cases involving large assemblies. Any variance
between ocular and medical evidence is minor and explainable by
possible blunt-side use of weapons or the commotion, without
falsifying the primacy of ocular accounts. Enmity acts as a double-
edged sword, providing motive rather than doubt. There is no case
for conversion to Section 304 IPC, as intent is evident from the
deadly weapons and targeted blows to the head.
6.5.In support of his arguments, the following cases are relied upon:
Sr.
No.
Citation Case Number Date
1 AIR 2012 SC 1743 SLP (CR)
2874/2008
28.02.2012
2 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 596CR.A/739/201714.07.2022
7.Submissions on behalf of the State (Criminal Appeal No.775 of
2022)
7.1.Learned APP for the State, echoed the complainant's submissions
and independently argued that the acquittal of accused
Nos.1,4,5,6,7,8, and 9 by the learned Sessions Court is manifestly
erroneous and against the weight of evidence, necessitating their
conviction. He reiterated that the prosecution has proven an
unlawful assembly under Sections 147-149 of the IPC beyond
reasonable doubt, with a shared common object to murder and
inflict grievous injuries, fueled by enmity over illegal sand mining
activities, as accepted by the learned Sessions Court. The nine
accused, forming an armed mob, committed house trespass and a
Page 16 of 34
R/CR.A/670/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/02/2026
brutal assault, leading to Arvindbhai Haribhai Patel's death and
serious injuries to the six family members.
7.2.The learned APP stressed the robustness of the ocular evidence
from 13 eyewitnesses, including the 6 injured ones, where 11
witnesses explicitly implicated all nine accused, with consistent
narratives surviving cross-examination. This is bolstered by
medical corroboration (injuries aligning with weapons) and
objective evidence like panchnamas, supported by panchas. He
stressed upon the learned Sessions Court's selective doubt on
injury certificates as a basis for acquittal, while disregarding the
accused's participation in the mob and the common intent. He
submitted that the core prosecution case remains intact despite any
peripheral inconsistencies. Enmity strengthens the motive, not the
defense of false implication.
7.3.He affirmed that liability under Section 149 attaches to all
members of the assembly aware of the likelihood of murder,
irrespective of individual acts. The premeditated attack in a lit area,
triggered by accused No.7, and the scale of injuries preclude the
possibility of only two perpetrators. Brain mapping was properly
ignored, and the acquittal fails to account for blood evidence and
FSL reports. He prayed for conviction of all under the charged
sections.
7.4.In opposing the conviction appeals, the learned APP defended the
learned Sessions Court's decision, highlighting PW-10's credible
testimony supported by corroborative evidence and arguing against
any reduction to Section 304 IPC given the clear murderous intent.
Page 17 of 34
R/CR.A/670/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/02/2026
7.5.In support of her arguments, the following cases are relied upon:
Sr.
No.
Citation Case Number Date
1 2025 (0) AIJEL-SC 76047CR.A/151/201329.10.2025
2 2023 (0) AIJEL-SC 70719CR.A/1910/201029.03.2023
3 2003 (0) AIJEL-SC 23430CR.A/119/199731.10.2003
4 1989 (0) AIJEL-SC 15415CR.A/227/198317.01.1989
8.Heard the learned Advocate for the appellants 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.
9.The prosecution examined Dr. Sheetal Kundanlal Ehari (PW-22,
Exh.-107), who conducted the post-mortem examination on the body of
the deceased on 14.06.2014 at the Civil Hospital, Bharuch. The doctor
stated that the dead body was brought with a police requisition letter
(Exh.-108) and an inquest panchnama (Exh.-28), which was duly proved
through the testimony of panch witness Nareshkumar Sureshbhai Patel
(PW-1, Exh.-27). The post-mortem was conducted between 7:00 a.m. and
8:45 a.m. The deceased was a male aged about 58 years, wearing blood-
stained clothes, with rigor mortis present, post-mortem lividity visible,
and eyes open.
10.On external examination, the doctor noted a triangular cut lacerated
wound measuring 3 x 2 cm on the right side of the head reaching up to
the bone, a vertical elongated wound above the right elbow, several
bluish contusions of different sizes on the left hand and back, and
abrasions on the right side of the back. On internal examination, there
was a fracture of the frontal bone, extra-dural and sub-dural haemorrhage
Page 18 of 34
R/CR.A/670/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/02/2026
with about 100-200 ml of clotted blood, compression of the posterior part
of the head, and a pale brain. Other organs were mostly normal except for
pallor in some. Blood samples and clothes were preserved for further
examination. The doctor opined that the cause of death was shock due to
extra-dural haemorrhage caused by the head injury. He further stated that
such injuries could be caused by a blunt object like a stick or the blunt
side of an axe, and not by a sharp-edged weapon. In cross-examination,
he explained the time frame of rigor mortis and stated that death might
have occurred about eight hours prior to the examination. He also
explained colour changes of injuries with time, admitted that the colour of
abrasions was not specified, confirmed that no history of the incident was
mentioned in the police papers, and stated that no weapon was shown to
him for opinion after the post-mortem.
11.After carefully considering this evidence, the learned Sessions
Court held that the post-mortem report (Exh.-109) clearly proved that the
death was homicidal in nature. The court found that the injuries were
ante-mortem, were intentionally inflicted on a vital part of the body, and
satisfied the ingredients of culpable homicide under Section 299 of the
Indian Penal Code, 1860. The learned Sessions Court dealt with the
defence arguments relating to alleged discrepancies in the number of
injuries, the nature of weapons used, and differences between the medical
evidence and the inquest panchnama, and held that these issues were
minor and did not affect the core conclusion regarding the cause of death.
The contention regarding partial rigor mortis and the timing of death was
also rejected. The court found the medical evidence reliable and
supportive of the prosecution case against the convicted accused.
12.It appears from the record that the testimony of the doctor is clear,
systematic, and well-supported by the post-mortem report. It conclusively
Page 19 of 34
R/CR.A/670/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/02/2026
establishes that the deceased died due to severe head injuries caused by
intentional acts, and not due to accidental or natural causes. Although the
defence argued that the injuries were consistent with blunt weapons rather
than sharp weapons like the alleged dhariya or farsi, we find that during a
violent incident, variations in the manner, force, or angle of blows can
result in lacerated injuries instead of clean incised wounds. Such minor
variations do not weaken the prosecution case. The learned Sessions
Court rightly held that these peripheral inconsistencies do not affect the
fundamental finding of homicidal death. It is also well settled law that the
post-mortem report prevails over the inquest panchnama in describing
injuries, and the absence of showing weapons to the doctor after the post-
mortem does not invalidate the opinion on cause of death. We therefore
affirm the finding that the medical evidence proves culpable homicide
amounting to murder and strongly corroborates the role attributed to
Accused Nos. 2 and 3.
13.We now refer to the eyewitness evidence relating to the assault on
the deceased. The prosecution mainly relied upon the testimony of
Somabhai Ratanjibhai Patel (PW-10, Exh.-72), who is the father of the
complainant and was himself injured in the incident. He stated that on
13.06.2014 at about 9:00 p.m., in the village of Nava Borbhatha, he was
sitting in the compound after dinner along with the deceased Arvindbhai
Haribhai Patel, Sureshbhai Bhikhabhai Patel (PW-12, Exh.-75),
Natvarbhai Chhotubhai Limbachiya (PW-13, Exh.-76), and Ramanbhai
Madhavbhai Patel (PW-9, Exh.-71). Accused No. 7 Bharatbhai
Mohanbhai Vasava arrived in a tempo and questioned him about a
previous quarrel involving his child during Holi. The witness stated that
he was not present during that incident. Thereafter, Accused No. 7 made
a phone call and shouted words to the effect that others should come and
cut Somabhai’s family members, and then left. Shortly thereafter, several
Page 20 of 34
R/CR.A/670/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/02/2026
accused persons arrived armed with weapons. Mukeshbhai Lallubhai
Vasava and Lallubhai Mohanbhai Vasava were carrying dhariyas,
Govindbhai Thakorbhai Rathod and Pratik Govindbhai Rathod were
carrying swords, Mahendrabhai Madhavbhai Patel had a dhariya, and
Maheshbhai Uttambhai Vasava had an axe. They shouted threats and
forcibly opened the gate. Mukeshbhai struck the witness on the head with
a dhariya, Mahendrabhai hit him on the cheek with the blunt side of the
weapon, Accused No. 3 Ratanlal Bherumal Jain struck the deceased on
the head with a dhariya, and Accused No. 2 Bhagvatbhai Thakorbhai
Vasava struck the deceased on the head with a farsi. After causing
damage to vehicles parked there, the accused fled. The injured persons
were taken to hospital, where Arvindbhai was declared dead.
14.The learned Sessions Court accepted the testimony of this witness
insofar as it related to the fatal assault on the deceased. The court found
this part of the testimony to be consistent, trustworthy, and not shaken in
cross-examination, despite the fact that the witness was related to the
deceased. The court took note of prior disputes and litigations between
the parties, including cases under mining laws, but held that these factors
did not undermine the reliability of the witness regarding the specific role
played by the accused in causing the fatal injuries. At the same time, the
court did not rely upon the witness’s version relating to assaults inside the
house, as his position in the compound would not have allowed him to
witness those events. The court found no serious contradictions affecting
his account of the assault on the deceased.
15.It transpires that the witness gave a clear and sequential account
and specifically attributed the fatal head injuries to Accused Nos. 2 and 3.
This version fully matches the medical evidence showing fracture of the
frontal bone and haemorrhage. Although cross-examination revealed past
Page 21 of 34
R/CR.A/670/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/02/2026
enmity and prior cases between the parties, nothing material emerged to
suggest false implication with respect to the fatal blows. The argument
regarding lack of visibility due to darkness is unconvincing, considering
the close proximity of the parties and their familiarity with each other in a
village setting. The learned Sessions Court correctly applied the principle
that conviction can be based on the testimony of a single reliable witness
when it is supported by medical evidence. Its decision to accept the
testimony only to the extent it was reliable, and to reject other portions,
reflects proper appreciation of evidence. We therefore concur that this
testimony clearly establishes the involvement of Accused Nos. 2 and 3 in
causing the fatal injuries with the intention required under Section 300 of
the IPC.
16.We now consider the evidence regarding the alleged grievous
injury caused to Nikunj Satishbhai Patel (PW-14, Exh.-77), the son of the
complainant. It was alleged that Accused No. 5 Pratik Govindbhai Rathod
struck him on the head with a sword. The witness stated that he was
inside the house when the incident began, came out after hearing the
noise, and was struck on the head by Pratik Rathod with a sword, after
which he fell near the deceased and sustained a bleeding injury. However,
during cross-examination, he admitted that due to the chaos, he could not
clearly see who assaulted whom.
17.The learned Sessions Court noted several inconsistencies and
deficiencies in this part of the prosecution case. It found contradictions
regarding the place of injury, as this witness claimed the injury occurred
in the compound, while other witnesses suggested it happened inside the
house or near the entrance. The medical evidence did not support an
injury caused by a sharp-edged weapon, and the CT scan opinion of Dr.
Vishal Jagadishchandra Maurya (PW-26, Exh.-130) at Exh.-131
Page 22 of 34
R/CR.A/670/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/02/2026
suggested blunt force impact similar to a stick. The injury certificate
(Exh.-116) was found unreliable as it lacked signatures, dates, and history
of the incident. The recovered sword (Exh.-30) had no blood stains and
was not sent to the FSL. On these grounds, the learned Sessions Court
held the evidence insufficient and acquitted Accused No. 5.
18.Upon perusal of the record, we find no fault with the reasoning of
the learned Sessions Court. The witness’s own admission that he could
not clearly identify the assailant creates serious doubt. This doubt is
further strengthened by conflicting versions given by related witnesses
and the medical evidence pointing towards blunt force injury rather than a
sword attack. The failure to properly examine the weapon and the
background of existing enmity further weaken the prosecution case. In
these circumstances, the learned Sessions Court rightly extended the
benefit of doubt to Accused No. 5, and we find no reason to interfere with
that acquittal.
19.We now examine the allegation of grievous injury caused to
Sureshbhai Bhikhabhai Patel (PW-12, Exh.-75). It was alleged that
Accused No. 8 Lallubhai Mohanbhai Vasava caused a fracture to his right
tibia with the sharp edge of a dhariya, and that Accused No. 1
Mahendrabhai Madhavbhai Patel caused an abrasion on his cheek with
the blunt side of a dhariya. The witness stated that while he was in the
compound, Lallubhai struck his leg with a sharp dhariya, resulting in a
fracture, and Mahendrabhai struck him on the cheek.
20.The learned Sessions Court found that the injury certificate (Exh.-
114) was not duly proved, as it lacked proper signatures, dates, and
history of the incident, and that Dr. Yoginiben Rameshbhai Patel (PW-24,
Exh.-124) had signed it without personal knowledge of the injuries. The
Page 23 of 34
R/CR.A/670/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/02/2026
court further noted that there was no clear medical evidence of a sharp-
edged injury, contradictions regarding whether the injury was on the left
or right cheek, and the fact that the complaint itself did not mention the
cheek injury. The witness also admitted of having suffered a similar leg
injury earlier. The dhariya (Exh.-40) was not sent to the FSL. In view of
these shortcomings, the learned Sessions Court held that the prosecution
failed to prove this charge beyond reasonable doubt and accordingly
acquitted the concerned accused.
21.On examining the record, we find that the learned Sessions Court
correctly and carefully assessed the evidence. The lack of clarity
regarding the injury on the cheek, which was not mentioned in the
complaint (Exh.-62), indicates that this detail was added later. The
medical evidence of Dr. Deepakbhai (PW-23, Exh.-108) shows only
swelling and does not support the claim of grievous injury. His testimony
also leaves open the possibility that the fracture could have been
accidental or old. Independent witnesses present in the compound,
namely Ramanbhai Madhavbhai Patel (PW-9, Exh.-71) and Natvarbhai
Chhotubhai Limbachiya (PW-13, Exh.-76), had left the spot at an early
stage, which weakens their support. In view of existing enmity and gaps
in the evidence, the learned Sessions Court rightly extended the benefit of
doubt and maintained the acquittal of Accused Nos. 1 and 8.
22.We now consider the allegation of grievous hurt to Somabhai
Ratanjibhai Patel (PW-10, Exh.-72), who claimed that Accused No. 9
Mukeshbhai Lallubhai Vasava struck him on the head with a dhariya,
causing a fracture at the back of the skull. In his examination-in-chief, the
witness stated that while sitting in the compound, after witnessing the
assault on the deceased, Mukeshbhai hit him near the left ear with a
dhariya, causing severe pain, after which he was taken to Patel Hospital
Page 24 of 34
R/CR.A/670/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/02/2026
and later to Baroda Heart Hospital. However, during cross-examination,
he gave inconsistent statements. He denied that the injury was caused by
a sword, expressed uncertainty about a dhariya blow, and admitted that
the blow on his chest, which caused swelling, came from behind during
the scuffle, making it impossible for him to identify who caused that
injury. He further stated that he could not say with certainty who struck
him, as the assailants were behind him.
23.It may be noted that there are serious defects in the injury
certificate (Exh.-113) prepared by Dr. Deepakbhai Chimanbhai Parekh
(PW-23, Exh.-108): it was not duly signed by him, undated, contained no
history of the incident, and was signed only by Dr. Yoginiben
Rameshbhai Patel (PW-24, Exh.-124) on instructions, without having
examined the patient. The court also found a clear mismatch between oral
and medical evidence. Although the certificate recorded cut lacerated
wounds in the occipital region, fracture and swelling in the left parietal
bone, and chest contusions, there was no incised wound, which would
normally be expected if a sharp dhariya had been used. The doctor
admitted that such injuries could be caused by blunt force or even an
accidental fall and that no internal details were recorded. The learned
Sessions Court further observed that witnesses inside the house (PW-14
to PW-21) could not have seen what happened in the compound,
considering the distance of about 25 feet shown in the scene of offence
map (Exh.-51). Their evidence appeared exaggerated and influenced by
family ties and existing enmity. The seized dhariya (Exh.-40) was not
sent for FSL examination, which further weakened the prosecution case.
On these grounds, Accused No. 9 was acquitted.
24.Upon scrutiny of the record, we fully agree with the learned
Sessions Court. The witness’s clear accusation in examination-in-chief
Page 25 of 34
R/CR.A/670/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/02/2026
loses credibility due to his admissions in cross-examination that he was
unsure and could not identify who struck him. This uncertainty affects the
allegation against Accused No. 9. The medical evidence does not support
the use of a sharp weapon and instead suggests blunt force injuries,
directly contradicting the prosecution case. The injury certificate is
unreliable due to the absence of signature, date, and incident history. The
so-called corroboration by indoor witnesses is improbable in light of the
site map (Exh.-51) and is further weakened by their close relationship
with the complainant and admitted enmity arising from earlier mining
disputes and cross-complaints. The failure to send the dhariya for FSL
examination breaks any forensic link. In these circumstances, the benefit
of doubt was rightly given to Accused No. 9, and we find no error in his
acquittal.
25.We next consider the allegation of hurt to the complainant
Satishbhai Somabhai Patel (PW-8, Exh.-61), who alleged that Accused
No. 4 Govindbhai Thakorbhai Rathod struck him on the head with a
sword and Accused No. 6 Maheshbhai Vasava struck him with an axe.
The complainant stated that when the accused entered the compound, he
ran inside the house, where Maheshbhai and Govindbhai followed him.
According to him, Maheshbhai hit him on the head with an axe,
Govindbhai hit him with a sword, and the flat handle of the axe struck his
left hand. However, he admitted that his original complaint (Exh.-62),
lodged on 14.06.2014 while he was fully conscious, did not mention any
injury to himself. These details were added only in a later statement
recorded on 15.06.2014, which he explained by saying that head pain
prevented him from stating them earlier.
26.The learned Sessions Court found this omission in the FIR to be a
serious defect. It observed that the complainant gave a detailed account of
Page 26 of 34
R/CR.A/670/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/02/2026
injuries to others but made no mention of his own injuries, despite being
conscious. The later addition was treated as an afterthought, especially
since the complainant admitted that he did not inform the treating doctor
at Sunshine Global Hospital about the incident or the assailants. The
injury certificate (Exh.-115) was found doubtful as it was unsigned by Dr.
Deepakbhai Chimanbhai Parekh (PW-23, Exh.-108), undated, and signed
by Dr. Pritiben Janardan Patel (PW-27, Exh.-137) without personal
knowledge. The certificate noted two injuries, but the complainant
claimed only one blow, and no incised wound was present despite the
alleged sword attack. The court also took note of strong enmity between
the parties, including pending atrocity cases and cross-complaints, raising
the possibility of false implication. Accused No. 4 was therefore
acquitted.
27.The failure to mention personal injuries in the original complaint,
given promptly and consciously, is a material contradiction. The
explanation of “head pain” does not appear convincing when the
complainant admitted full awareness during the complaint. This suggests
exaggeration. Medical evidence does not support a sword injury, as there
was no incised wound, only swelling and a laceration consistent with
blunt force or accident. The injury certificate suffers from serious
procedural defects and cannot be relied upon. Evidence from family
members inside the house is biased and unreliable. Considering the
admitted enmity, the prosecution failed to prove the charge beyond
reasonable doubt, justifying the acquittal of Accused No. 4.
28.We now turn to the allegation relating to Alpanaben Satishbhai
Patel (PW-16, Exh.-80), the complainant’s wife, who claimed that
Accused No. 9 Mukeshbhai Lallubhai Vasava struck her on the shoulder
with the blunt side of a dhariya. In her testimony, she stated that she was
Page 27 of 34
R/CR.A/670/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/02/2026
hit on the back and shoulder with flat blows inside the house but did not
name any specific person who caused the injury. She stated that she took
treatment at home but could not name the doctor or produce any medical
record. In cross-examination, she admitted differences between her
testimony and her police statement, where she had stated that someone
struck her with a stick. The witness did not attribute the injury to Accused
No. 9 or any named accused. No medical evidence was produced to prove
the injury. The inconsistency regarding the weapon further weakened her
testimony. Other family witnesses also gave conflicting versions, and all
were interested witnesses with admitted enmity. On this basis, the
allegation was rejected and Accused No. 9 was acquitted on this charge.
The injured witness did not identify the assailant, which is a basic defect.
In the absence of medical proof, even the existence of injury is doubtful.
Contradictions regarding the weapon and inconsistent family testimony,
combined with enmity, make the allegation unreliable. The benefit of
doubt was rightly given.
29.The allegation concerning Chanchalben Somabhai Patel (PW-15,
Exh.-78), the complainant’s mother, is similar. She alleged that Accused
No. 6 Maheshbhai Vasava struck her on the shoulder and abdomen with
the handle of an axe. However, in her testimony, she stated only that
“someone” struck her with flat blows of a stick and did not identify
Accused No. 6. She claimed treatment at Yash Hospital but produced no
injury certificate, and no doctor was examined. She admitted that these
blows were not mentioned in her police statement, and other family
witnesses gave varying versions. The witness did not name Accused No.
6. There was no medical proof. There were contradictions regarding the
weapon. Importantly, the defence showed through the Borbhatha
Assembly Voter List for 2014 (Exh.-214) that several persons named
Mahesh Vasava lived in the village. No test identification parade was
Page 28 of 34
R/CR.A/670/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/02/2026
conducted, and the investigating officers (PW-29, Exh.-144 and PW-30,
Exh.-145) could not explain how this particular Maheshbhai Uttambhai
Vasava was identified. The learned Sessions Court therefore acquitted
Accused No. 6. The lack of clear attribution, absence of medical
evidence, and serious doubt regarding identity make the allegation
speculative. The presence of multiple persons with the same name and the
absence of identification procedures are fatal to the prosecution case.
Enmity further weakens reliability. The acquittal is justified.
30.Lastly, we consider the charge of unlawful assembly under
Sections 141, 147, 148, and 149 IPC. The prosecution alleged that all
accused formed an unlawful assembly with a common object to commit
trespass and assault. The learned Sessions Court rejected this contention.
It found that only Accused Nos. 2 and 3 were proved to have caused fatal
injuries. The evidence against the others was doubtful. The incident was
short in duration, accounts of timing were inconsistent, and there was no
clear proof of prior planning or a shared common object. The presence of
other accused was not reliably proved, and false implication due to
enmity could not be ruled out. The requirements of Section 149 were
therefore not met. An unlawful assembly requires at least five persons
sharing a common object, and Section 149 applies only when offences are
committed in furtherance of that object. Here, the prosecution proved
only the individual acts of Accused Nos. 2 and 3. The remaining accused
were not shown to have shared any common object or participated in the
offences. Given the brief incident, lack of clear evidence of concerted
action, and doubtful presence of others, the finding of unlawful assembly
cannot be sustained. The benefit of doubt rightly goes to the acquitted
accused.
31.While examining whether the legal principles relating to
Page 29 of 34
R/CR.A/670/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/02/2026
apportionment of liability and appreciation of evidence, as relied upon by
the appellant, can be applied to the facts of the present case, we do not
find any substance in the said contention. Upon a careful reading of the
factual matrix and the evidence on record, neither the legal position nor
the proportion sought to be applied comes to the aid of the appellant. The
learned advocate for the appellant has relied upon the decisions in
[Premchand Vs. State Of Maharashtra - 2023 (0) AIJEL-SC 70553],
[Mehatar Vs. State Of Maharashtra - 2025 (0) AIJEL-SC 74754],
[Murugan Vs. State Rep. By The Inspector Of Police - 2025 (0) AIJEL-
SC 75020], [Suresh Sahu Vs. State Of Bihar (Now Jharkhand) - 2025
(0) AIJEL-SC 76207], [Vinod Jaswantray Vyas Vs. State Of Gujarat -
2024 (0) AIJEL-SC 73772], [Edakkandi Dineshan @ P. Dineshan &
Ors. Vs. State Of Kerela - 2025 (0) AIJEL-SC 74525], [Rama Devi Vs.
State Of Bihar And Others - 2024 (0) AIJEL-SC 74101], [Narain Vs.
State Of Madhya Pradesh - 2004 (0) AIJEL-SC 19075], [Hallu Vs.
State Of Madhya Pradesh - 1974 (0) AIJEL-SC 10468], and [Balaram
Vs. State Of Madhya Pradesh - 2023 (0) AIJEL-SC 72811] to contend
that the testimony of a sole witness becomes unreliable on account of
previous enmity between the parties, that such testimony should not be
acted upon, and that the evidence of certain witnesses has not been
properly considered, thereby entitling the appellant and the co-accused to
the benefit of doubt. It is further argued that there are material
inconsistencies in the testimonies, coupled with procedural lapses,
including lapses relating to material witnesses. These judgments lay
down principles such as contradictions between ocular and medical
evidence, defective examination under Section 313, faulty investigation,
and the double-edged nature of enmity, and hold that where evidence is
inseparable and contradictions strike at the root of the prosecution case,
acquittal is justified, especially when the same evidence has led to
acquittal of co-accused. However, in the present case, the crucial issue is
Page 30 of 34
R/CR.A/670/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/02/2026
not the existence of these principles in law, but whether they are
applicable to the facts of the case at hand. Each case must be decided on
its own facts, and precedents cannot be mechanically applied without
examining factual distinctions. Here, the evidence is clearly separable.
There are consistent ocular testimonies of multiple injured witnesses,
which are duly corroborated by the medical evidence. The inconsistencies
pointed out are minor in nature and do not destroy the core of the
prosecution case. The existence of enmity, in the present facts, supplies a
motive rather than leading to false implication. Despite certain procedural
lapses, the overall evidence remains trustworthy and cogent. Therefore,
the aforesaid precedents do not assist the appellant, and the conviction is
sustainable.
32.Further, learned advocate for the appellant relied upon the case in
Saheb, S/o Maroti Bhumre Etc. v. State of Maharashtra [Criminal
Appeal Nos. 313 of 2012 and 314 of 2012] reported in 2024 (0) AIJEL-
SC 74038, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, held that maxim falsus in uno,
falsus in omnibus is only a rule of caution and has not assumed status of a
rule of law in Indian context, an attempt must be made to separate truth
from falsehood and where such separation is impossible, there cannot be
a conviction. The Hon’ble Supreme Court while evaluating the credibility
of the sole eyewitness (the widow of the deceased) in a case involving
offences under Sections 148, 149 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code,
1860, held that although the maxim falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus is
only a rule of caution and not a rule of law in the Indian context, a sincere
effort must be made to separate truth from falsehood. However, where
such separation is rendered impossible owing to pervasive inconsistencies
such as contradictory statements regarding the sequence of assault,
absence of adequate moonlight for clear identification, embellishments in
court deposition vis-à-vis the initial complaint, and inexplicable omission
Page 31 of 34
R/CR.A/670/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/02/2026
to attribute any role to certain accused despite their alleged prominent
entry the entirety of the testimony falls into the realm of uncertainty. In
such circumstances, no conviction can be sustained on the solitary
testimony, and the accused are entitled to the benefit of doubt, resulting in
their acquittal notwithstanding prior incarceration.
33.The learned advocate for the complainant has also relied upon
[Surendra and Ors. v. State of U. P. - AIR 2012 SC 1743] and [Shahaja
@ Shahajan Ismail Mohd. Shaikh Vs. State of Maharashtra - 2022
LiveLaw (SC) 596] to submit that the common object of the unlawful
assembly can be inferred from the coordinated manner of attack and the
motive arising out of enmity, and that the ocular evidence of multiple
witnesses remains reliable despite minor discrepancies. It is further
contended that the applicability of Section 149 does not require proof of
individual overt acts, provided there is knowledge of the likelihood of the
offence of murder. These decisions hold that where motive and common
object are established, and where the Court is able to separate truth from
falsehood, convictions under Sections 302/149 and 307/149 are justified,
while cautioning that the evidence of interested witnesses must be
carefully scrutinized and accepted only if corroborated. However, in the
present matter, the acquittals recorded by the trial court are not perverse.
The trial court has, on a proper appreciation of evidence, found the injury
certificates to be doubtful and the material on record insufficient to
establish specific overt acts or a common object in respect of the seven
acquitted accused.
34.It is well settled that the principle of falsus in uno, falsus in
omnibus is not strictly applicable in India, and the Court is required to
separate the truthful part of the evidence from the false. In the present
case, such separation is possible, and while the prosecution case remains
Page 32 of 34
R/CR.A/670/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/02/2026
intact against the convicted accused, the benefit of doubt has rightly been
extended to the acquitted accused. Hence, these citations do not justify
interference or reversal.
35.The learned APP has placed reliance upon [Haribhau Bhausal eb
Dinkar Kharuse & Anr. Vs. State Of Maharashtra - 2025 (0) AIJEL-SC
76047], [Balu Sudam Khalde Vs. State Of Maharashtra - 2023 (0)
AIJEL-SC 70719], [Ramchand Yadav Vs. Prabhu Nath Jha - 2003 (0)
AIJEL-SC 23430], and [Lalji Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh - 1989 (0)
AIJEL-SC 15415] to contend that the acquittals are erroneous, as the
common object of the unlawful assembly stands proved through active
participation of the accused, supported by ocular evidence corroborated
by medical records, and that minor contradictions or defects in
investigation do not warrant acquittal when the core prosecution case is
established. These judgments state that reversal of acquittal is permissible
where the findings are manifestly perverse, that vicarious liability under
Section 149 extends to members of an unlawful assembly who were
aware of the likelihood of murder being committed, and that prior enmity
supplies motive and does not negate guilt, provided the evidence is
otherwise reliable. However, in the present factual scenario, the findings
of the trial court regarding doubtful injuries and absence of specific overt
acts attributed to the acquitted accused cannot be termed perverse. The
evidence on record permits separation between the role of the convicted
and the acquitted accused. While the inconsistencies do not weaken the
prosecution case against the convicted persons, they are sufficient to
justify the acquittals. Accordingly, these precedents do not support
interference with the acquittal in the facts of this case.
36.In conclusion, the judgment of the learned Sessions Court shows
careful and fair appreciation of evidence, separating reliable material
Page 33 of 34
R/CR.A/670/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/02/2026
from doubtful claims. We find no reason to interfere. The conviction of
Accused Nos. 2 and 3 under Sections 302 and 450 IPC is required to be
confirmed, so also the acquittal of the remaining accused is required to be
upheld.
37.In view of the foregoing reasons, the conviction appeals being
Criminal Appeal No. 899 of 2020 and Criminal Appeal No. 670 of 2020
are hereby dismissed. The acquittal appeals being Criminal Appeal No.
24 of 2020 and Criminal Appeal No. 775 of 2022 also hereby dismissed.
Bail bonds, if any, stand cancelled. The records be transmitted to the
learned Sessions Court forthwith.
(ILESH J. VORA,J)
(R. T. VACHHANI, J)
MVP
Page 34 of 34
Legal Notes
Add a Note....