R/CR.A/1027/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/02/2026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

R/CRIMINAL APPEAL (AGAINST CONVICTION) NO. 1027 of

2017

With

R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1646 of 2017

FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ILESH J. VORA

and

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. T. VACHHANI

=========================================

Approved for Reporting Yes No

=========================================

PINTUBHAI @ KALIO DOLUBHAI VASAVA

Versus

STATE OF GUJARAT

=========================================

Appearance:

HCLS COMMITTEE(4998) for the Appellant(s) No. 1

MR P B KHAMBHOLJA(5730) for the Appellant(s) No. 1

MR VINAY VISHAN, APP for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1

=========================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ILESH J. VORA

and

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. T. VACHHANI

Date : 12/02/2026

ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. T. VACHHANI)

1. The present Criminal Appeals are preferred by the

appellants–accused under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure, 1973, being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction

and order of sentence dated 21.01.2017 passed by the learned 2nd

Additional Sessions Judge, Ankleshwar in Sessions Case No.

21/2015, whereby the appellants were convicted for the offences

Page 1 of 27

R/CR.A/1027/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/02/2026

punishable under Sections 302 read with 114 of the Indian Penal

Code and Section 135 of the Gujarat Police Act. The learned

Sessions Court sentenced the appellants to undergo imprisonment

for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- each, in default to further

undergo one year’s rigorous imprisonment for the offence under

Section 302 read with Section 114 IPC, and to undergo rigorous

imprisonment for four months and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/- each, in

default to undergo one month rigorous imprisonment for the

offence under Section 135 of the Gujarat Police Act. The

substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the two accused,

namely Ajaybhai alias Bodko Rameshbhai Vasava and Pintubhai

alias Kaliyo Dolubhai Vasava, both residents of Dansoli village,

Taluka Valiya, District Bharuch, had been persistently harassing

and teasing the deceased Parvatiben, a woman who was living

alone with her daughter, the complainant Mograben, at the same

village. The accused frequently visited Parvatiben’s house, made

indecent demands and advances for sexual acts, abused her with

filthy language, and subjected her to continuous molestation and

harassment. On the morning of 28.09.2014, when the complainant

Mograben returned home after completing her work, she found her

mother Parvatiben present at home along with both the accused.

The accused were then verbally abusing Parvatiben in vulgar

terms. When Parvatiben strongly objected and warned them that

she would report their conduct to the village Sarpanch if they

continued to come to her house, the accused became enraged and

threatened her by saying, “We will not let you live,” before leaving

the place. Later that same day, around 15:00 hours, while

Parvatiben had gone alone to the field in the Kim Khadi area of

Gandhuvagam to collect grass, the accused, nursing enmity and

Page 2 of 27

R/CR.A/1027/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/02/2026

grudge due to her earlier resistance and warning, followed her to

the isolated spot. There, they again demanded immoral acts from

her. When Parvatiben firmly refused and resisted their advances,

the accused, in a fit of anger and with clear intention to cause her

death, assaulted her by inflicting multiple blows on her neck with a

sharp edged sickle (datardu). The assault resulted in deep, fatal

incised wounds on the neck, leading to profuse bleeding,

hemorrhagic shock, and ultimately her death at the spot. The

prosecution alleges that the accused acted in concert with common

intention to commit murder, knowing fully well that the use of a

dangerous weapon like a sickle on such a vital part of the body was

sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death.

3. On the basis of the complaint lodged by the complainant

Mograben immediately after the discovery of her mother’s dead

body, an offence was registered at Valiya Police Station vide Crime

Registration No. First 79/2014 under Sections 302 read with 114 of

the Indian Penal Code and Section 135 of the Gujarat Police Act.

The investigation was carried out by the police, during which

statements of witnesses were recorded, the scene of offence was

inspected, relevant panchnamas were prepared, the weapon

(sickle) was recovered at the instance of the accused persons, and

other incriminating articles were seized. After completion of the

investigation, a detailed charge sheet was filed before the learned

Judicial Magistrate First Class, Valiya, where the case was initially

registered as Criminal Case No. 1050/2014. Since the offence

under Section 302 IPC is exclusively triable by a Court of Session,

the case was committed to the Additional Sessions Court,

Ankleshwar by order of the committing court. Upon receipt, it was

registered as Sessions Case No. 21/15.

Page 3 of 27

R/CR.A/1027/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/02/2026

4. In the Sessions Court, when the accused appeared, it was

confirmed that they had received copies of all police papers. The

accused expressed their desire to engage a private advocate.

Thereafter, the charge under Section 228 Cr.P.C. was framed

against them for the offences alleged. The charge was read over,

explained, and its meaning was made clear to the accused, who

pleaded not guilty and denied the allegations vide their statement

at Exh. 8. The case was accordingly fixed for recording of evidence,

and the trial proceeded with the examination of prosecution

witnesses, production of documentary evidence, and cross-

examination by the defence. The complainant party led both oral

and documentary evidence to establish the charges against the

accused beyond reasonable doubt.

5. In order to prove the charge, the prosecution examined as

many as 21 witnesses and exhibited 18 documents.

Oral Evidences:-

Sr.

No.

Exh. Name

111Madhuben Bhupatbhai Vasava

215Sureshbhai Ramubhai Vasava

320Mukeshbhai Maheshbhai Vasava

421Anilbhai Dilipbhai Vasava

524Somabhai Bijalbhai Vasava

625Pravinsinh Naharsinh Kharachiya

734Bhikhabhai Shankarbhai Vasava

839Khumanbhai Devalabhai Vasava

941Akhadabhai Govindbhai Vasava

1043Rameshbhai Amrabhai Vasava

1144Champakbhai Chandubhai Vasava

1245Harshadbhai Panchiyabhai Vasava

1346Prakashbhai Sureshbhai Vasava

1447Kantubhai Chhanabhai Vasava

Page 4 of 27

R/CR.A/1027/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/02/2026

Sr.

No.

Exh. Name

1549Mograben Prabhatbhai Vasava

1651Abhesig Budhiyabhai Vasava

1752Ramanbhai Haribhai Vasava

1856Dr. Ashwinbhai Khemabhai Katara

1959Dr. Pranavkumar Subhodhkumar Sinha

2063Priteshkumar Govindbhai Chaudhary

2172Radhesingh Bhaijibhai Bariya

Documentary Evidences:-

Sr.

No.

Exh. Document Description

112Inquest Panchnama

216Scene of Offence Panchnama

322Weapon Discovery Panchnama

426Panchnama for Seizure of Clothes of Accused

535Panchnama for Seizure of Clothes on the Dead Body

640Arrest Panchnama of Accused

750Complaint

853Copy of Station Diary

957Yadi sent to Medical Officer for conducting Post-Mortem

1058Post-Mortem Report

1160

Yadi sent to Medical Officer for Medical Examination of

Accused

1261Medical Examination Certificate of Accused

1364Muddamal Dispatch Note

1465FSL Receipt for Muddamal Received

1566Biological Examination Report

1667Serological Report

1768Toxicology / Poison Examination Report

1872

Notification by District Magistrate regarding Arms

Prohibition

6. Learned advocates appearing for the appellants–accused

Ajaybhai alias Bodko Rameshbhai Vasava and Pintubhai alias Kaliyo

Dolubhai Vasava have vehemently submitted that the impugned

Page 5 of 27

R/CR.A/1027/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/02/2026

judgment of conviction and order of sentence cannot be sustained.

They contended that the prosecution case rests entirely on

circumstantial evidence with no eye-witness to the actual incident.

The complainant Mograben has not seen the occurrence and only

discovered the body the next morning. It was urged that the chain

of circumstances is incomplete and broken at several points. In

particular, the last seen together circumstance, based on the

testimonies of PW-12 Harshadbhai Panchiyabhai Vasava at Exh.45

and PW-14 Kantubhai Chhanabhai Vasava at Exh.47, is unreliable

due to unnatural conduct of the witnesses passive non-intervention

despite seeing an elderly woman in distress, material

contradictions between police statements and court depositions,

possible tutoring or improvement, and non-examination of a

material companion witness Haribhai Nagarbhai Vasava.

6.1Further, several panch witnesses turned hostile, limiting

corroboration of recovery panchnama.

6.2The recovery of the sickle - datardu at the instance of the

accused and presence of deceased’s blood on it and on the

accused’s clothes, while incriminating, do not conclusively prove

that the appellants committed the murder, as alternative

explanations cannot be ruled out in the absence of a complete

chain excluding reasonable hypothesis of innocence.

6.3In view of these submissions, it was prayed that the

conviction and sentence imposed by the learned Sessions Court

cannot be sustained and the appeals be allowed by setting aside

the same.

Page 6 of 27

R/CR.A/1027/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/02/2026

6.4Learned advocates also vehemently relied upon several

authoritative judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court to contend

that the prosecution has failed to establish a complete and

unbroken chain of circumstantial evidence sufficient to sustain the

conviction for murder beyond reasonable doubt. They have placed

reliance on the following decisions:

(a) Shambhu Choudhary v. State of Bihar where the Apex

Court emphasized that in cases based purely on circumstantial

evidence, every link in the chain must be firmly proved, and mere

suspicion or incomplete circumstances cannot lead to conviction.

(b) Raj Kumar @ Suman v. State (NCT of Delhi)

reiterating that incriminating circumstances must be put to the

accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. in a meaningful manner, and

failure to do so vitiates reliance on such circumstances.

(c) Naresh Kumar v. State of Delhi holding that if any

incriminating circumstance appearing in evidence is not

specifically put to the accused, it cannot be used against him.

(d) Tara Singh v. State underscoring that circumstantial

evidence must be consistent only with the guilt of the accused and

inconsistent with any other reasonable hypothesis.

(e) Vinodgar Rameshgar Jivangar Goswami Bavaji v.

State of Gujarat clarifying that in circumstantial cases, the

prosecution must prove that the circumstances are incompatible

with the innocence of the accused.

(f) Narayan Yadav v. State of Chhattisgarh observing that

a confessional or self-incriminating FIR by an accused is

inadmissible as substantive evidence against him except to a

limited extent under Sections 8 and 27 of the Evidence Act, and

conviction cannot rest solely on such inadmissible material.

Page 7 of 27

R/CR.A/1027/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/02/2026

(g) Abdul Nassar v. State of Kerala reinforcing the five

golden principles from Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of

Maharashtra, that the chain of circumstances must be fully

established, complete, and point unerringly to the guilt of the

accused alone.

(h) Padman Bibhar v. State of Odisha holding that the 'last

seen together' theory alone is insufficient for conviction in a purely

circumstantial case unless corroborated by other clinching

evidence, and a broken or incomplete chain entitles the accused to

the benefit of reasonable doubt.

6.5It was strenuously urged that the present case suffers from

similar infirmities unreliable 'last seen' evidence, doubtful Section

27 recovery, hostile panch witnesses, and lack of corroborative

links rendering the prosecution's chain broken and incomplete,

warranting acquittal in line with the principles laid down in the

aforesaid judgments.

7. Opposing the contentions, learned APP for the State, while

stoutly defending the impugned judgment and order of the Sessions

Court, submitted that the conviction rests on a robust chain of

circumstantial evidence fully satisfying the principles laid down by

the Hon’ble Supreme Court for cases based solely on

circumstantial evidence. He highlighted the following key

circumstances:

(i) the last seen together circumstance stands proved through

the testimonies of independent village witnesses Harshadbhai

Panchiyabhai Vasava and Kantubhai Chhanabhai Vasava, who saw

both accused with the deceased Parvatiben near the Kim River

bridge in the late afternoon and evening of 28.09.2014, observed

Page 8 of 27

R/CR.A/1027/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/02/2026

her in a helpless condition, and heard the accused falsely claiming

she had merely “fallen” while they were “pulling her out”;

(ii) the dead body was recovered the very next morning from

the identical spot under the tamarind tree, bearing multiple deep

incised wounds on the neck inflicted by a sharp cutting weapon;

(iii) the post-mortem report at Exh.58 unequivocally

establishes death from hemorrhage and traumatic shock due to

these injuries, sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause

death and consistent with the recovered sickle – datardu;

(iv) the sickle was recovered at the instance of the accused

under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, corroborated by

panchnama and witnesses;

(v) the FSL report confirms the presence of the deceased’s

blood group on the seized sickle and on the clothes of the accused;

(vi) clear motive and prior conduct under Section 8 of the

Evidence Act are proved through complainant Mograben’s

testimony at Exh.49 regarding repeated harassment, indecent

demands, abuses, molestation, and explicit death threats hours

before the incident; and

(vii) the accused offered no plausible explanation in their

statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C. to account for the deceased

being last seen with them, the blood stains, the recovery, or their

conduct.

7.1He therefore submitted that the prosecution has successfully

established the chain of circumstances and the learned Sessions

Court has rightly convicted the appellants under Section 302 read

with Section 114 IPC. The learned APP candidly conceded that

there is no direct eye-witness to the assault and the case depends

Page 9 of 27

R/CR.A/1027/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/02/2026

wholly on circumstantial evidence. However, he maintained that

the proved circumstances form a complete chain pointing

unerringly to the guilt of the appellants and that no other

hypothesis consistent with innocence survives.

8. Having heard the learned advocates for the appellants–

accused and the learned APP for the State, and having carefully

considered the entire evidence on record, the findings of the

learned Sessions Court, the chain of circumstantial evidence, the

nature of the incident, and the rival submissions, this Court is of

the considered opinion that while certain incriminating

circumstances are proved including the last seen circumstance

based on the claimed to have been testimonies of PW-12

Harshadbhai Panchiyabhai Vasava at Exh.45 and PW-14 Kantubhai

Chhanabhai Vasava at Exh.47, recovery of the sickle at the instance

of the accused under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act,

medical evidence of fatal neck injuries consistent with a sharp

weapon like the sickle, FSL corroboration confirming the

deceased’s blood group on the weapon and on the clothes of the

accused, and prior motive from harassment and threats deposed by

the complainant Mograben at Exh.49 the chain is not fully

complete, continuous, and unbreakable so as to exclude every

reasonable possibility consistent with the innocence of the accused

or to establish their guilt for murder beyond reasonable doubt.

8.1The last seen witnesses conduct is highly unnatural and

improbable passive non-intervention upon seeing a woman in

distress, acceptance of a dubious explanation without verification

or assistance, contradictions between police statements and

depositions suggesting possible improvement or tutoring, and non-

examination of a material companion witnesses namely PW-12

Page 10 of 27

R/CR.A/1027/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/02/2026

Harshadbhai Panchiyabhai Vasava at Exh.45 and PW-14 Kantubhai

Chhanabhai Vasava at Exh.47 which casts serious doubt on the

reliability and spontaneity of their evidence as a conclusive link.

Several panch witnesses turned hostile, weakening corroboration

of recovery and seizure details.

8.2.While the recovery of the sickle and blood stains create

strong suspicion, they do not, in isolation or combination,

conclusively prove that the appellants alone committed the fatal

assault, particularly in the absence of direct ocular evidence of the

occurrence and given the isolated nature of the spot with no

independent eyewitness to the act itself. The prosecution has not

discharged the burden of proving a complete chain of

circumstances where all links are firmly established and

incompatible with any hypothesis of innocence.

9. The record demonstrates that the key links last seen by

witnesses whose reliability raises grave doubts due to unnatural

conduct, inconsistencies, and selective examination; recovery and

FSL evidence linking the accused to the weapon and blood; and

motive from prior harassment undoubtedly create strong suspicion

against the appellants but fall short of excluding reasonable doubt

regarding their exclusive involvement in the murder or the absence

of any alternative explanation consistent with innocence. The

prosecution has miserably failed to prove an unbroken chain

pointing unerringly and solely to the guilt of the appellants for the

offence under Section 302 read with Section 114 IPC. In these

circumstances, the conviction and sentence imposed by the learned

Sessions Court cannot be sustained.

10.From the evidence on record, particularly the post-mortem

Page 11 of 27

R/CR.A/1027/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/02/2026

report at Exh-58 and the testimony of the Medical Officer including

Dr. Ashwinbhai Katara’s examination, it clearly emerges that the

deceased Parvatiben had sustained multiple deep incised wounds

and injuries around the neck region, measuring variously in

horizontal orientation with clearly definable edges and margins,

exposing internal structures, and accompanied by peeling of skin

on adjacent areas forehead, cheeks, ears, clavicle, etc., leading to

profuse hemorrhage and traumatic shock. The injuries were

sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death by

cessation of heart and respiratory functions due to hemorrhage and

shock.

10.1.The Medical Officer has opined that these injuries could be

caused by a sickle (datardu), and the muddamal weapon recovered

was identified as capable of inflicting such wounds. Although the

defence suggested alternative explanations the scene panchnama,

recovery evidence, and FSL report confirming deceased’s blood

group on the sickle and accused’s clothes rule out such pleas and

establish that the assault was carried out with considerable force.

However, the medical evidence does not conclusively establish an

intention to cause death, but it clearly demonstrates knowledge

that such acts were likely to cause death or at least serious bodily

harm of a kind likely to result in death.

11.The prosecution has examined several witnesses, including

the complainant Mograben (daughter of the deceased) at Exh. 49,

independent witnesses Harshadbhai Panchiyabhai Vasava at Exh.

45 and Kantubhai Chhanabhai Vasava at Exh.47, Abheysing

Budhiyabhai at Exh.51, the investigating officers, medical

witnesses, and panch witnesses. On perusal of their entire

testimonies read together with the medical evidence, the factum of

Page 12 of 27

R/CR.A/1027/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/02/2026

the deceased being last seen alive with the accused in the field, has

not been established and proceed merely because the dead body

being recovered the next morning from the same spot with fatal

neck injuries as claimed by witness is not sufficient to point finger

against accused in absence of link of chain of circumstances as

claimed by the prosecution. The manner in which the occurrence

took place is that the accused, enraged by the deceased’s refusal

and warning, assaulted her with the sickle while she was alone

fetching grass. Due to the isolated nature of the spot and absence

of immediate eyewitnesses to the actual assault, no direct ocular

account of the fatal blows exists. Immediately thereafter, the

accused left the scene, and the body was discovered the following

morning. Thus, the prosecution witnesses, when their depositions

are read together with the medical, recovery, and FSL evidence,

indicate that the death of the deceased was not natural but a

culpable homicide. However, the question which requires

consideration, in view of the entire evidence on record, is as to how

and under what circumstances the deceased came to die so also the

involvement of the accused in occurrence.

12.It transpires that the prosecution in support of its case has

examined numerous witnesses; however, out of the said witnesses,

the one is the complainant Mograben, who claimed prior

harassment, threats, and the recovery of the body, and the last

seen witnesses Harshadbhai and Kantubhai, who sought to

established the crucial circumstantial link. Thus, no eyewitness saw

the actual assault, and several panch witnesses turned hostile,

limiting direct corroboration of seizure/recovery details.

13.It transpires from the entire material placed for consideration

that the cause behind the incident, as per the case of the

Page 13 of 27

R/CR.A/1027/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/02/2026

prosecution, is the harassment of the deceased by the accused,

their repeated indecent demands, abuses, molestation, and explicit

death threat given just hours before the fatal assault when

Parvatiben warned of informing the Sarpanch. The theory of the

prosecution that the accused acted with common intention to

murder finds support in the chain of circumstances, but upon closer

scrutiny, the sudden provocation arising from the deceased’s

resistance in an isolated setting, absence of premeditation, and

impulsive use of the weapon at the spot itself create sufficient

doubt regarding the existence of specific intention to cause death.

14.The complainant Mograben at Exh.49, daughter of the

deceased Parvatiben, was examined as a key witness by the

prosecution. She deposed that the accused persons, Ajaybhai alias

Bodko Ramesh bhai Vasava and Pintubhai alias Kaliyo Dolubhai

Vasava, had been persistently harassing her mother for a

considerable period. They frequently visited the house of the

deceased, made indecent demands/advances for immoral/sexual

acts, teased and molested her, and abused her in filthy language in

her presence as well as that of others. Specifically, on the night of

27.09.2014, both accused came to their house and, after entering,

continued their teasing and abusive behaviour towards Parvatiben.

When Parvatiben strongly objected and warned them that she

would inform the village Sarpanch about their conduct, the accused

became enraged and explicitly threatened her by saying, “If you

inform the Sarpanch, we will kill you.”

14.1The witness further stated that on 28.09.2014, upon

returning home after work, she again found both accused present

at the house, abusing her mother. Parvatiben repeated her

warning, leading to the same death threat from the accused before

Page 14 of 27

R/CR.A/1027/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/02/2026

they left. Later that day, when Parvatiben failed to return after

going to fetch grass, the witness searched for her and, the next

morning, discovered her mother’s dead body under the tamarind

tree near the Kim River bridge with severe wounds on the neck and

blood oozing. She identified the body and immediately lodged the

complaint, which formed the basis of Crime Registration No. First

79/2014 at Valiya Police Station. Her testimony do not explicitly

establishes a clear motive, prior conduct, and explicit threats given

just hours before the incident as credible and consistent so as to

establish the chain of circumstances to prove the guilt against the

appellants.

15.PW-12 Harshadbhai Panchiyabhai Vasava at Exh.45 cited as

an independent villager, was examined and his testimony was

intended to prove a crucial link in the circumstantial chain through

the last-seen-together circumstance. He stated that on 28.09.2014,

while proceeding with his tempo to fill diesel, he passed near the

bridge over the Kim River and saw both the accused pulling

Parvatiben. Becoming suspicious, he questioned them directly:

“What are you doing?” The accused replied that she had fallen and

they were pulling her out. He did not witness the actual assault or

murder but observed the accused with the deceased in a helpless

or fallen condition at that location during the late afternoon. The

next morning, the dead body of Parvatiben was recovered from

almost the identical spot under the tamarind tree on the river bank,

bearing fatal injuries on the neck. However, this Court finds it

highly unnatural and improbable that an ordinary villager, upon

seeing an elderly woman known to him as Parvatikaki being

physically pulled or handled by two persons in a suspicious manner

and appearing helpless or fallen, would merely ask “What are you

doing?” and accept the explanation that “she had fallen and we are

Page 15 of 27

R/CR.A/1027/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/02/2026

pulling her out” without making any further attempt to ascertain

her condition, offer assistance, or at least proceed closer to the

spot to verify the situation.

15.1Instead, the witness simply continued on his way without any

intervention, reporting, or follow up action at that moment. This

unnatural manner raises serious doubt about the presence of this

witnesses as claimed therein which loses the spontaneity and

genuineness of his testimony. The defence’s suggestion that the

witness was a daily employer of Parvatiben for fetching grass and

wood, and yet did not act in a manner consistent with concern for a

known labourer in apparent distress, the possibility that he has

been got up or tutored later as a witness cannot be ruled out. The

discrepancies in his police statement and court deposition

regarding time and exact description of the location further weaken

the reliability of this evidence.

16.PW-14 Kantubhai Chhanabhai Vasava at Exh.47 cited as

another independent villager and the Sarpanch of the village, was

examined to corroborate the last-seen-together circumstance. He

deposed that on 28.09.2014 around 6:30 p.m., while passing near

the Kim River bridge, he saw both accused with Parvatiben. Upon

noticing their suspicious activity, he asked: “What are you doing?”

The accused responded that Parvatiben had fallen and they were

pulling her out, even pointing towards him and saying “this one

person,” implying they were aware of his presence as a witness.

Like Harshadbhai, he did not see the fatal assault but observed the

accused physically interacting with the deceased in a helpless state

at the precise location. The dead body was recovered the following

morning from under the tamarind tree in the same vicinity. This

Court, however, finds the conduct of this witness highly unnatural,

Page 16 of 27

R/CR.A/1027/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/02/2026

improbable, and suspicious. As the Sarpanch of a small village

where everyone knows each other and where Parvatiben was a

resident, seeing an elderly woman from his own village in a fallen

or helpless condition, being handled by two persons who offered a

questionable explanation (“she has fallen, we are pulling her out”),

and yet restricting his reaction to merely asking “What are you

doing?” without making any attempt to approach the spot, check on

Parvatiben’s condition, offer assistance, summon help, or even

raise an immediate alarm is wholly inconsistent with the expected

behaviour of a responsible villager, let alone the Sarpanch whose

duty it is to protect and assist fellow villagers in distress. The fact

that he continued on his way without taking any further action,

despite being fully aware of the unusual and potentially serious

situation involving a woman in apparent peril, casts grave doubt on

the truthfulness and spontaneity of his version.

16.1Moreover, the record reveals that Kantubhai was in the

company of another witness, Haribhai Nagarbhai Vasava, at or

around the relevant time, as per the investigation notes and

statements. However, Haribhai Nagarbhai Vasava was not

examined on oath before the court, despite his statement having

been recorded by the Investigating Officer.

16.2The non-examination of this accompanying person, who could

have independently corroborated or contradicted Kantubhai’s

presence, conduct, and version at the spot, creates a significant

lacuna and raises a strong inference that the prosecution

selectively examined only those witnesses who supported their

narrative while deliberately withholding a material witness who

might have exposed inconsistencies. The defence has rightly

Page 17 of 27

R/CR.A/1027/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/02/2026

pointed out contradictions between Kantubhai’s police statement

and his court testimony, including the emergence of additional

details in court, which suggest possible improvement,

embellishment, or tutoring.

16.3In these circumstances, the possibility that Kantubhai has

been got up as a witness to bolster the prosecution’s last-seen-

together theory cannot be ignored, and his evidence does not

inspire the full confidence required to treat it as a reliable and

conclusive link in the chain of circumstantial evidence.

17.The combined testimony of PW-12 Harshadbhai Panchiyabhai

Vasava and PW-14 Kantubhai Chhanabhai Vasava was heavily

relied upon by the sessions court to establish that the deceased

was last seen in the company of the accused at or near the spot

where her body was recovered the next morning. While their

accounts are mutually corroborative on the broad fact of sighting

the accused with Parvatiben in a suspicious situation, the glaring

common feature in both depositions is the complete absence of any

effort to render assistance, verify the deceased’s condition, or take

immediate steps despite seeing an elderly woman in apparent

distress. In a small village setting where people know each other,

such passive and detached behaviour upon witnessing a potentially

serious situation is highly unnatural and improbable. This conduct,

coupled with the material contradictions highlighted by the defence

in their police statements vis-à-vis court depositions, raises a

strong inference these witnesses might have been got up or their

statements improved subsequently to fit the prosecution narrative.

In the absence of any independent corroboration of their presence

at the relevant time and place, and considering the overall

suspicious nature of their non-intervention, this Court is not

Page 18 of 27

R/CR.A/1027/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/02/2026

inclined to place implicit reliance on their testimonies as conclusive

proof of the last-seen-together circumstance beyond reasonable

doubt. The chain of circumstantial evidence, therefore, suffers from

a serious weakness at this vital link.

18. During the course of the investigation, one of the accused

persons was medically examined by the concerned doctor. Upon

examination, the doctor observed certain injuries on the private

parts of the said accused. The Medical Officer, in his opinion

recorded and deposed before the Court, opined that these injuries

were consistent with and possible due to forcible sexual

intercourse. This medical finding does not assumes significance in

the context of the prosecution's case alleging sexual harassment

preceding the fatal assault, the prosecution did not frame or prove

in absence of a specific charge under Section 376 IPC. The defence,

however, contested the reliability of this opinion, submitting that

such injuries could arise from various other causes and do not

conclusively establish commission of rape or link the same directly

to the death of the deceased Parvatiben. This Court has taken note

of this evidence while appreciating the overall chain of

circumstances but finds that it does not fill the gaps in the

prosecution's case so as to prove murder beyond reasonable doubt.

19.Further, the recovery of the sickle (datardu), the alleged

weapon of offence, at the instance of the accused under Section 27

of the Indian Evidence Act deserves careful scrutiny. The

prosecution relied heavily on the discovery panchnama to establish

that the sickle was produced by the accused from a concealed

place known only to them, thereby providing a direct link between

the appellants and the crime. However, the foundational

requirement of a proved discovery at the instance of the accused

Page 19 of 27

R/CR.A/1027/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/02/2026

remains unestablished, particularly when the panch witnesses to

the recovery turned hostile and did not support the prosecution

version regarding the manner, place, or voluntariness of the

recovery. This Court is therefore constrained to hold that the

recovery under Section 27 cannot be accepted as a reliable

circumstance pointing to the guilt of the appellants.

20.As held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Rajasthan

vs. Hanuman 2025 SC 691 , mere recovery of a blood-stained

weapon matching the deceased’s blood group is not, by itself,

sufficient to sustain a conviction under Section 302 IPC in the

absence of a complete chain of circumstantial evidence proving the

guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

21.The prosecution’s case is further weakened by the fact that a

large number of panch witnesses examined in relation to various

panchnamas including the scene of offence panchnama, inquest

panchnama, recovery panchnama of the sickle, and seizure of

clothes from the accused turned hostile and did not support the

prosecution narrative in material particulars. Their hostility is not

merely formal; several panchas resiled from their earlier police

statements and denied having witnessed the proceedings as

recorded or having affixed their signatures or thumb impressions

voluntarily.

21.1In a case resting solely on circumstantial evidence, the

corroborative value of contemporaneous panchnamas prepared in

the presence of independent witnesses is of critical importance.

The turning hostile of these panch witnesses creates a substantial

lacuna in the prosecution evidence and renders the recoveries and

seizures suspect.

Page 20 of 27

R/CR.A/1027/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/02/2026

22.The learned Sessions Court appears to have undervalued this

aspect while placing reliance on the FSL report and post-mortem

findings alone, in absence of other cogent and clinching material

which appears to believing in case on hand.

23.Even assuming that the FSL report establishes the presence

of human blood of the deceased’s group on the sickle and on the

clothes of the accused, such scientific evidence, while

incriminating, is corroborative in nature and cannot stand alone to

prove the offence of murder when the primary links in the

circumstantial chain particularly the last seen together

circumstance and the Section 27 recovery suffer from serious

infirmities and reasonable doubts. The presence of blood stains,

without a proved exclusive possession or conclusively established

recovery process, permits reasonable possibilities of

contamination, secondary transfer, or other explanations consistent

with innocence. In the absence of any direct evidence connecting

the accused to the actual commission of the assault, and given the

gaps highlighted above, the FSL report does not bridge the

evidentiary void so as to complete the chain beyond reasonable

doubt.

24.Taking an overall view of the matter, the prosecution has

succeeded in creating suspicion against the appellants through

motive from prior harassment and threats, medical evidence of

fatal neck injuries, scientific evidence of blood on weapon and

clothes, and partial circumstantial links. However, suspicion,

however strong, cannot take the place of proof. The chain of

circumstances remains broken at vital points: the unreliable and

unnatural last seen testimonies, the non-corroboration by hostile

panch witnesses, the doubtful Section 27 recovery, the absence of

Page 21 of 27

R/CR.A/1027/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/02/2026

any direct evidence of the assault, and the failure to rule out

reasonable alternative hypotheses. In these circumstances, the

prosecution has not proved the guilt of the appellants for the

offence of murder punishable under Section 302 read with Section

114 of the Indian Penal Code beyond reasonable doubt. The

conviction recorded by the learned Sessions Court therefore cannot

be upheld.

25.The learned sessions court, after appreciating the evidence

led by the prosecution, held that the case rested entirely on

circumstantial evidence, there being no direct eyewitness to the

actual assault. It placed heavy reliance on the 'Last Seen Together'

theory, primarily through the testimonies of PW-12 Harshadbhai

Panchiyabhai Vasava (Exh.45) and PW-14 Kantubhai Chhanabhai

Vasava (Exh.47), who claimed to have seen both accused with the

deceased Parvatiben near the Kim River bridge on the evening of

28.09.2014, in a situation where she appeared to have “fallen” and

the accused were “pulling her out”. The sessions court observed

that the dead body was recovered the next morning from the very

same spot under the tamarind tree, with fatal incised wounds on

the neck, and concluded that the deceased was last seen alive in

the company of the accused. The sessions court further noted that

the accused offered no explanation whatsoever in their statements

under Section 313 Cr.P.C. regarding this circumstance, and held

that failure to explain the 'last seen' situation went against them.

26.As held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Indrakunwar vs.

The State of Chhattisgarh 2023 SC 932 , even though the

accused may choose to remain silent during examination under

Section 313 CrPC, such silence or refusal to answer cannot be used

against the accused to draw an adverse inference leading to

Page 22 of 27

R/CR.A/1027/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/02/2026

conviction, particularly in the absence of other complete and

clinching circumstantial evidence proving guilt beyond reasonable

doubt.

27.The learned sessions court appears to have erred in

conceding the motive and prior conduct as proved through the

testimony of the complainant Mograben at Exh.49, who deposed

about repeated harassment, indecent demands, filthy abuses,

molestation, and explicit death threats given by the accused on

27.09.2014 and again on the morning of 28.09.2014.

28.This Court finds it apposite to observe that the principles

governing appreciation of evidence in cases resting solely on

circumstantial evidence have been authoritatively laid down by the

Hon’ble Supreme Court in a series of binding decisions, which are

squarely attracted to the facts and circumstances of the present

case. In Padman Bibhar v. State of Odisha , the Apex Court has

reiterated:

“10. It is settled law that in a case based on circumstantial

evidence, the prosecution is obliged to prove each

circumstance, taken cumulatively to form a chain so complete

that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all

human probabilities, crime was committed by the accused and

none else. Further, the facts so proved should unerringly point

towards the guilt of the accused.”

28.1Similarly, in Abdul Nassar v. State of Kerala & Another ,

the Hon’ble Supreme Court has emphasized the necessity of a clear

and complete delineation of the chain:

“29. The Courts have undertaken an examination of the

testimonies of the witnesses but has omitted to delineate the

inferences derivable therefrom. Moreover, they failed to

expound upon how the prosecution has succeeded in

construction an unbroken chain of circumstances that

irrefutable establishes the culpability of the accused to the

exclusion of any other hypothesis.”

Page 23 of 27

R/CR.A/1027/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/02/2026

28.2Further, in Narayan Yadav v. State of Chhattisgarh ,

dealing specifically with the evidentiary value of recoveries under

Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act when panch witnesses turn

hostile, the Supreme Court held:

“29. Most of the panch witnesses turned hostile. If at all, the

public prosecutor wanted to prove the contents of the

panchnamas after the panch witnesses turned hostile, he could

have done so through the evidence of the investigating officer.

However, the investigating officer also failed to prove the

contents of the panchnamas in accordance with law. Thus,

there is nothing on record by way of evidence relating to any

discovery of fact is concerned. In other words, no discovery of

fact at the instance of the appellant, relevant and admissible

under Section 27 of the Act of 1872, has been established.”

29.Applying these settled principles to the facts on record, this

Court finds that the prosecution has not succeeded in proving each

incriminating circumstance with the degree of certainty required.

The 'last seen together' circumstance remains vitiated by serious

doubts as to the reliability and spontaneity of the testimonies of

PW-12 Harshadbhai Panchiyabhai Vasava and PW-14 Kantubhai

Chhanabhai Vasava. The recovery of the sickle under Section 27 of

the Evidence Act is materially weakened by the hostility of the

panch witnesses and the absence of proper corroboration through

independent evidence of the Investigating Officer in accordance

with law.

29.1The FSL report, though showing blood of the deceased’s

group, cannot cure these foundational defects when the chain itself

is incomplete and permits reasonable hypotheses consistent with

innocence.

29.2In the absence of a complete and unbroken chain that

unerringly points to the guilt of the appellants to the exclusion of

Page 24 of 27

R/CR.A/1027/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/02/2026

all others, the prosecution has failed to discharge its burden of

proving the charge beyond reasonable doubt.

30.The learned sessions court further took into account the

medical examination of accused Ajaybhai alias Bodko Rameshbhai

Vasava by Dr. Sinha, who found abrasions and stretch marks on the

scrotum, opining that such injuries were possible due to forcible

sexual intercourse. The sessions court treated this as corroborative

of the prosecution’s allegation of persistent sexual harassment and

molestation, though no specific charge under Section 376 IPC was

framed or proved. The sessions court also noted that several panch

witnesses, including those to the seizure of clothes at Exh.26 and

related memos, turned hostile, merely identifying their signatures

on prepared panchnamas without supporting the prosecution

version, but erred in holding that this did not materially affect the

chain when viewed with other proved circumstances.

31.However, this Court, on re-appreciation of the entire record

in appeal, finds that the sessions court fell into error in concluding

that the chain of circumstantial evidence was complete and

unbreakable. The trial court’s heavy reliance on the 'Last Seen

Together' theory is vitiated by the serious infirmities discussed in

above the highly unnatural and improbable passive conduct of both

key witnesses, material contradictions between their police

statements and court depositions, suggestions of improvement or

tutoring, non-examination of material companion witness Haribhai

Nagarbhai Vasava, and the defence suggestion that Harshadbhai

was a regular employer of the deceased yet failed to act

consistently with concern. These factors render their evidence

unreliable and insufficient to conclusively establish the vital 'last

seen' link beyond reasonable doubt.

Page 25 of 27

R/CR.A/1027/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/02/2026

32.Moreover, the sessions court’s acceptance of the Section 27

recovery and related panchnamas overlooks the fact that the

majority of panch witnesses turned hostile and did not corroborate

the prosecution version regarding the manner, place, or

voluntariness of the recovery of the sickle or seizure of clothes.

Mere identification of signatures on prepared panchnamas by

hostile panchas cannot substitute for independent proof of

discovery at the instance of the accused. In the absence of reliable

panch corroboration, the evidentiary value of Section 27 recovery

is materially weakened, and the FSL report, while showing blood of

the deceased’s group, loses much of its probative force when the

foundational link of proved exclusive possession is doubtful. The

sessions court’s finding that the chain remained complete despite

these hostilities and gaps is not sustainable.

33.The learned sessions court also appears to have placed undue

weight on the motive and prior threats without adequately

addressing the defence contention that the complainant’s

testimony contained contradictions regarding dates, times, and

sequence vis-à-vis the FIR, and that the harassment narrative was

not independently corroborated beyond hearsay or interested

witnesses. The medical opinion of Dr. Sinha regarding injuries on

accused Ajaybhai, while suggestive of possible forcible sexual

activity, remains inconclusive and extraneous to the proved cause

of death, as no charge of rape or attempt was framed, and the

prosecution did not establish a direct nexus to the fatal assault.

34.In the ultimate analysis, the prosecution has established

certain incriminating circumstances creating strong suspicion

against the appellants, but the chain suffers from critical breaks

and reasonable doubts at multiple points unreliable last-seen

evidence, hostile panch witnesses, doubtful Section 27 recovery,

Page 26 of 27

R/CR.A/1027/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/02/2026

absence of direct ocular account, and failure to exclude alternative

hypotheses consistent with innocence. Suspicion, however grave,

cannot replace proof beyond reasonable doubt. The learned

Sessions court erred in holding that the circumstantial chain

pointed unerringly and solely to the guilt of the appellants for

murder under Section 302 r/w 114 IPC. The conviction and

sentence cannot therefore be sustained.

35.In the result, both Criminal Appeals are allowed. The

impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated

21.01.2017 passed by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge,

Ankleshwar in Sessions Case No. 21/2015 is hereby set aside. The

appellants are acquitted of the charges under Sections 302 r/w 114

IPC and Section 135 of the Gujarat Police Act. They shall be set at

liberty forthwith unless required in connection with any other case.

Bail bonds, if any, stand cancelled.

(ILESH J. VORA,J)

(R. T. VACHHANI, J)

Kaushal Rathod

Page 27 of 27