R/CR.A/1507/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/01/2026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

R/CRIMINAL APPEAL (AGAINST CONVICTION) NO. 1507 of 2018

With

R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1553 of 2017

With

R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 228 of 2021

FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ILESH J. VORA

and

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. T. VACHHANI

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

Approved for Reporting Yes No

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

RAMESH DHANJIBHAI SALAT

Versus

STATE OF GUJARAT

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

Appearance:

MR PRATIK B BAROT(3711) for the Appellants

MR JK SHAH APP for the Respondent

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

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ILESH J. VORA

and

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. T. VACHHANI

Date : 27/01/2026

COMMON ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ILESH J. VORA)

1.Since the facts of the case and issue involved in the captioned

appeals, are identical and arise out of the same judgment, the

appeals are taken up together and are being disposed by this

common judgment.

Page 1 of 30

R/CR.A/1507/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/01/2026

2.Vide judgment and order dated 26.09.2017 passed in Sessions

Case No. 68 of 2014, whereby the learned Additional Sessions

Court at Valsad, convicted and sentenced the accused A1 Ramesh

Salat and A2 Manoj Ramesh for the offences punishable under

Sections 302 read with Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code,

whereas, the accused Amir Ramesh A3 and accused Gopi Ramesh

A4, have been acquitted from the charges of murder, however, the

accused A3 Amir has been convicted under Section 323 for

causing injuries to the witnesses and sentenced them in the

manner stated hereinafter :

Conviction under

Section

Punishment Fine In default of

fine

302 of IPC RI for LifeRs3,000/-SI for 6 months

The sentences of the accused A1 and A2 were ordered to run

concurrently.

3.The accused appellant – Ramesh Salat A1 and accused Manoj

Salat A2, have also questioned the legality and correctness of the

judgment of conviction and order of sentence by preferring

Criminal Appeal No. 1507 of 2018 and Criminal Appeal No.228

of 2021 respectively.

4.The State being aggrieved with the acquittal of accused Nos. 3

and 4 from the charges of murder punishable under Section 302

has preferred an acquittal appeal being No. 1553 of 2017.

Page 2 of 30

R/CR.A/1507/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/01/2026

5.Factual background :

On 28.01.2014, the FIR against the 4 persons for the

offenses punishable under Sections 302, 323, 504, 506(2) read

with Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code came to be registered

being CR No.I- 41 of 2014 with Vapi Town Police Station, city :

Vapi, District : Valsad. The complainant and accused and

witnesses belonged to one family and living in the Kunta area of

Vapi. The son of complainant Bharat was killed by the accused

namely Ramesh Salat, Manoj Salat, Amir Salat and Gopi Salat,

inflicting bodily injuries with the weapons like dagger, iron pipe,

knife, iron rod. The incident of murder being occurred on

27.01.2014 at about 10-30 to 10-45 pm nearby the house of

complainant party. The motive behind the murder was due

amount of Rs.10,000/- allegedly to be paid by the complainant

PW-4 to the accused A1 Ramesh, who happened to be his real

brother. Prior to the incident, way back in the year 2001, the

accused Ramesh filed a criminal complaint against the

complainant and others for hurling abusive and causing

voluntary injuries to them. The accused Ramesh, as a part of

settlement was demanding Rs.10,000/- from his brother

complainant towards the expenses of litigation but despite of

repeated demand, the complainant PW-4 did not have heed the

request and did not have made the payment. It is in these

background facts, on 27.01.2014, the accused came at the house

of the complainant and made a demand of Rs.10000/- and on that

issue heated exchange of words being taken place between PW-4

Page 3 of 30

R/CR.A/1507/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/01/2026

and accused Ramesh Salat and thereafter, the accused No.1

Ramesh Salat took out weapon dagger and inflicted a repeated

blows on the back side of the head of deceased Bharat, who was

standing near his house. The accused Manoj A2, inflicted iron

rod blow on the head of deceased Bharat and also on the face of

the deceased, whereas, accused Amir A3 and accused No. 4

Gopi assaulted the deceased with the weapon iron rod and knife.

The wife of the deceased PW-5 Bhavna Rathod and minor

daughter aged about 6 yrs – PW-6 Mohini, when intervened for

rescual purpose, the accused A3 Amir caused injuries with pipe

on both the witnesses.

After the incident, the accused ran away from the place.

The deceased Bharat and injured witnesses immediately taken to

the Daman Government Hospital and the deceased was brought

declared dead by the doctor. The Daman Police had advised to

lodge an FIR with the Vapi Town Police Station at Vapi,

because, the incident has occurred in the jurisdictional area of

Vapi Town Police Station, as a result, on early morning at about

3-00 AM, PW-4 lodged an FIR before PW-11 – PI, Vapi Town

Police Station.

After registration of the offence against the accused, the

investigation of the case was handed over to the PW-11. The IO

during the investigation, prepared the panchanama of scene of

occurrence, arrested the accused on the same day i.e. 28.01.2014,

sent the dead body for the post mortem, seized the weapons

Page 4 of 30

R/CR.A/1507/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/01/2026

allegedly used in the crime, obtained the necessary injury

certificates of the witnesses, recorded the statement of the

witnesses, sent the seized articles to the FSL for forensic science

analysis and after completion of the investigation, the

chargesheet against the accused for the aforesaid offenses filed

before the jurisdictional Magistrate.

As the case was exclusively triable by the court of

Sessions and it was committed to the court of Sessions at Valsad.

The Sessions Court, Valsad framed the charges against the

accused, which they did not admit and claimed to be tried.

6.The prosecution in order to prove the charge, adduced the

following oral and documentary evidence in support of its case.

Oral evidence

PW 1 – Exh.9 Raju Amrat, panch witness

PW 2 – Exh.17Shankar Channabhai, panch witness

PW 3 – Exh.19Prema Narayanbhai, panch witness

PW 4 – Exh.20Varsingh Dhanji, Complainant

PW 5 – Exh.21Bhavnaben Bharatbhai

PW 6 – Exh.22Mohiniben Bharatbhai

PW 7 – Exh.24Dr. Nirankarnath Nevilal

PW 8 – Exh.29Dr. Prashant Sagar

PW 9 – Exh.35Kalidas Makan Patel

PW 10 – Exh.38Bhupatbhai Natubhai, PSO

PW 11 – Exh.41Govind Nanji Parmar, IO

Page 5 of 30

R/CR.A/1507/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/01/2026

PW 12 – Exh.45Zinga Ramdas, PSO

PW 13 – Exh.49Ajit Manubhai Parmar

Documentary evidence

Exh.10 Panchnama of place of offence

Exh.11-14 Signed copy of panchnama

Exh.18 Panchnama of state of body of accused

Exh.25 PM Note

Exh.26 Cause of death certificate

Exh.27 PM Yadi

Exh.28 Inq. Form 2B

Exh.30 Medical certificate of Bhavnaben

Exh.31 Medical certificate of Mohiniben

Exh.32 Yadi for medical examination

Exh.33 Case papers of Bhavnaben

Exh.34 Case papers of Mohiniben

Exh.36 Yadi for map of place of offence

Exh.37 Map of place of offence

Exh.39 Station diary

Exh.40 Police yadi

Exh.42 Complaint

Exh.43 Inquest panchnama

Exh.46 Panchnama of clothes recovered from the deceased

Exh.47 Signed copy of panchnama

Exh.48 Station diary

Page 6 of 30

R/CR.A/1507/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/01/2026

Exh.50 FSL report

Exh.51 Biological report

Exh.52 Serological report

7.After closure of the evidence, the statement of the accused under

Section 313 of the Cr.P.C, were recorded to which, they stated

that they have been falsely implicated in the offence and they are

innocent and have not committed any offence.

8.Though the opportunity was extended, no oral evidence being

adduced by the appellants accused.

9.Trial Court’s finding:

After hearing the parties and upon appreciation of the

evidence, the accused A1 and A2 i.e. Ramesh Salat and his son

Manoj Salat held guilty for the offence of murder and the rest of

the accused being acquitted from the charge of murder.

However, the trial Court convicted the accused A-3 Amir Salat

for causing voluntary injury to the witnesses under Section 323

of the Indian Penal Code. The trial Court while recording the

conviction has mainly relied upon the testimonies of eye-

witnesses PW-4 Varsing Dhanji, PW-5 Bhavnaben Rathod, and

minor daughter Mohini PW-6.

10.Evidence adduced by the prosecution :

Medical Evidence :

Page 7 of 30

R/CR.A/1507/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/01/2026

10.1PW-7 : Dr. Nirankarnath Nevilal Singh : This witness being

Medical Officer of Government Hospital, Marvad at Daman, had

conducted the Postmortum on the body of the deceased Bharat

Narsingbhai. The witness noticed the following external and

internal injuries :

External Injuries :

(i) incise wound of 8x1.5x1.5 cm. in middle of Lt

parietal region

(ii)incise wound of 6x1.5x1.5 cm. in middle of Rt

parietal region

(iii)incise wound of 4x0.5x0.5 cm. Lt side upper lip

(iv)incise wound of 4x0.5x1 cm. Lt side below

mandible

Internal Injuries:

(i)incise wound on right and left parietal region;

(ii)fracture on right and left parietal bone;

(iii)Contusion and laceration of brain, cerebral hemorrhage

present,

(iv)Incise wound over the left side below mandible

(4X0.5X1 cm)

So far as cause of death is concerned, the witness had opined

that the cause of death was hammageric shock due to head injury.

The witness Dr. PW-7 has proved and produced the PM report

and certificate of cause of death at Exh. 25 and 26. It is further

Page 8 of 30

R/CR.A/1507/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/01/2026

opined by the doctor that the external injuries and internal injuries

are correlated to each other. According to opinion of the doctor,

the injuries mentioned on column no. 17, 18 and 25 of PM report

were sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause death. It is

further opined that, the injuries mentioned in column no. 17 could

be possible with the weapon dagger and knife and injuries

mentioned in column no. 18 and 25 could be possible with the

weapon article iron pipe and article iron rod.

In the cross-examination, the witness has admitted that, during

the postmortem he did not notice any puncture wound on the body

of the deceased. On the aspect of possibility of the injuries of

parietal bone with the weapon knife, the witness has opined that it

can and it not be possible.

10.2PW-8 : Dr. Prashant Rameshbhai Sagar : This witness had

examined the injured witnesses PW-5 Bhavna Rathod and PW-6

Mohini Rathod. The witnesses were examined on 28.01.2014 in

the morning at 7-45 am at the Government Hospital, Marvad,

Daman. The witness No. 5 Bhavna Rathod, according to opinion

of the doctor, she received injury in the nature of contusion 3x1

cm over the forehead and this injury could be possible by hard and

blunt object. The witness no.6 Mohini Bharatbhai, as per the

examination of the doctor, she received an abrasion (2x1 cm) over

right forearm below elbow and same could be possible by hard

and blunt object. Both the injuries were simple in nature and the

certificates thereof are produced at Exh. 30 and 31 along with

Page 9 of 30

R/CR.A/1507/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/01/2026

OPD case papers.

Testimony of the Eye-witnesses :

11.PW-4 Varsingbhai Dhanjibhai Halpati : This witness is the

father of the deceased Bharatbhai and admittedly, the deceased

was living adjacent to the house of the witness – father. At

relevant time, the witness and family of the deceased were present

in the house. The accused Ramesh A1 is the real brother of the

witness and uncle of deceased Bharatbhai. The rest of the accused

are sons of the A1 Rameshbhai. Prior to the incident, the accused

Ramesh filed a criminal complaint against the witness and others

and on that ground, there was an animosity between the parties

and the accused Ramesh was asking the witness to pay

Rs.10,000/- towards litigation cost and reasons best known to the

witness, he was not ready to pay the amount. It is in these

background facts, the witness in his chief examination, has stated

that, the accused came to his house and at that time, his son Bharat

was standing near the door of his house and was fatally assaulted

by the accused. The witness in detail, has stated that the accused

Ramesh armed with dagger, gave a blow on the back side of head

and face of the deceased, whereas, accused Manoj inflicted blow

with iron rod on the head, whereas, accused Amir gave a blow on

the chest of the deceased and the accused Gopi caused injuries

with the knife on the lips and face of the deceased. The witness

has further stated that, the wife of the deceased Bhavna PW-5 and

minor daughter Mohini – PW-6, when intervened for rescue, they

Page 10 of 30

R/CR.A/1507/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/01/2026

also have been assaulted by the accused using iron pipe. The

witness has further stated that, the deceased was taken to Daman

Government Hospital in the ambulance and the doctor declaring

him ‘dead’ on arrival. The witness has stated that on the advice of

Daman Police, the FIR came to be lodged with the Vapi Town

Police Station. The witness has identified the accused in the court

and seized weapons article nos.2, 3, 4, 6, 9 and 11.

In the cross-examination, the witness has admitted that, the

accused Ramesh is his real brother and rest of the accused are his

nephew. The witness has denied that before 11 years, he assaulted

the accused Ramesh and his family members. It is also admitted

by the witness that, the criminal case for causing injury is pending

with the Vapi Court and the accused Ramesh was asking

Rs.10,000/- from him towards expenses and till date, the amount

has not been paid by him. It is denied by the witness that, no such

incident as stated in the chief-examination, being occurred and

due to the pendency of criminal case, the accused have been

falsely implicated by him. It is also denied by the witness that his

son is died due to motor accident. It is also admitted by the

witness that before the doctor, he did not have disclosed the

names of the assailants. It is denied by the witness that, in order to

pressurize the accused in the criminal case by creating false story,

they have been falsely implicated. On the aspect of delay in

lodging the FIR, the witness has stated that, the FIR came to be

lodged with Vapi Police Station in the early morning at about 4-00

Page 11 of 30

R/CR.A/1507/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/01/2026

to 4-30 am.

12.PW-5 Bhavnaben Bharatbhai Rathod : This witness is the wife

of the deceased Bharatbhai and at the time of incident, she was

very much present in the house along with two daughters namely

Neha and Mohini (PW-6). The witness in her chief-examination

has stated that, on the day of incident, the accused came to their

house and by hurling abusive, they demanded Rs.10,000/- from

her father-in-law, who is residing in the adjacent to her house and

at that time, Ramesh by using dagger gave a blow on the head of

deceased and the accused Amir and Gopi along with Manoj, had

also assaulted her husband with the weapon pipe, iron rod and

knife. She has stated that her husband was assaulted on his head

and face and while trying to rescue him, the accused assaulted her

as well as a minor daughter Mohini. The witness has stated that,

her husband was taken into ambulance at Government Hospital,

Marvad. The witness has identified the accused in the court and

also identified the weapons allegedly used by the accused in the

crime.

In the cross-examination, the defense has tried to prove that at

relevant time, there was no sufficient light at the place of

occurrence but the witness has denied to the said suggestion and

stated that there was sufficient light. On the aspect of due amount

of Rs.10,000/-, the witness has stated that since last 13 years, the

accused had been demanding the said amount from his father-in-

law. It is denied by the witness that, before incident, there was

Page 12 of 30

R/CR.A/1507/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/01/2026

heated exchange of words between her husband and accused and

deceased - her husband hurled abusive. The witness has admitted

that, after heated exchange of words, the incident of assault has

been taken place. It is denied by the witness that at relevant time,

she was not present in the house and on the aspect of assault by

the accused, she is telling lie.

13.PW-6 Mohini Bharatbhai: This witness is a minor daughter of

the deceased and at the age of 9, she had witnessed the incident.

Before recording the evidence, the court was satisfied about the

maturity to understand the question and answer, as a result, oath

was administered to her and thereafter, trial Court had proceeded

to record evidence. This witness has stated in her chief-

examination that the accused belonged to our family. At the time

of incident, the accused Ramesh Uncle, Manoj Uncle and Amir

Uncle, assaulted her father with the dagger, pipe and knife. The

witness has identified the accused and the seized weapons in the

court. She has also stated that, at the relevant time, her

grandfather, mother, grandmother and aunt were present. In the

cross-examination, the witness has denied that, on earlier

occasion, she had been in court to learn the proceedings of the

court and how to give deposition. She has also denied that, she

learnt from the discussions made amongst the family members on

the aspect of how to give deposition. She has also denied that, she

was tutored by her mother. She has denied the suggestion that,

before the incident could take place, there was heated arguments

which lasted for 10 minutes between the accused and her

Page 13 of 30

R/CR.A/1507/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/01/2026

grandfather. She has also denied that, her grandfather and others

were hurling abusive on the accused. She denied to the suggestion

that, due to sickness of her grandfather, he was sleeping on the

cot. She has denied that, no injury being sustained by her as well

as her mother in the said incident. She has admitted the facts that,

the accused Ramesh caused injury first in point of time to her

father and lastly, Gopi uncle assaulted him. She has stated that,

she has witnessed the entire incident. She has denied to the

suggestion that, due to drinking habit of her father, he was used to

beat her mother. She has denied that, on the day of incident, at

about 10:00 p.m. she went into sleep.

14.PW.11 – Govindji Nanji Parmar :This witness being a Police

Inspector of Vapi Town Police Station, had recorded the

complaint of the eye witness Varsingbhai Salat, which he

produced at Exh.42. The I.O. also referred the inquest and P.M.

proceedings held at Marvad Hospital. The I.O. in his chief-

examination has stated that, after the registration of the offence,

he was entrusted with the investigation of the case and during the

investigation, he had recorded the statements of the witnesses,

arrested the accused, seized the weapons used in the crime, sent

the seized articles for FSL. In the cross-examination, he has

admitted that, the thumb impression of the complainant has not

been identified by anyone. The witness has voluntarily stated that,

the complainant put the thumb impression before him. The I.O.

has admitted that, there is no any distinct identification of the

weapon being clarified by the witnesses. The I.O. has admitted

Page 14 of 30

R/CR.A/1507/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/01/2026

that, the temple is situated near the place of occurrence and he has

not recorded the statement of priest or any other responsible

person of the temple. In the cross-examination, the I.O. has stated

that, during the investigation, the witnesses have not stated that,

while lifting the deceased Bharat, their clothes got blood stains.

The I.O. has admitted that, during the investigation, it reveals that,

the criminal case filed by the accused Ramesh against the

complainant is pending and he does not know about the money to

be paid by the complainant to the accused. The I.O. has admitted

that, most of the witnesses are related to the complainant party.

15.PW.12 – Ajitkumar Manubhai Parmar: This witness being

a Police Inspector of Vapi Police Station, except filing of the

chargesheet, he did not have further investigate the case.

Submissions:

16.We have heard learned counsel Mr. Pratik Barot appearing for and

on behalf of the accused and Mr. J.K. Shah, learned Additional

Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State.

17.Mr. Pratik Barot, learned counsel while assailing the impugned

judgment of conviction and order of sentence, has urged the

following submissions:

(a)In the facts of the present case, the prosecution failed to prove the

charge beyond reasonable doubt.

Page 15 of 30

R/CR.A/1507/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/01/2026

(b)The trial court grossly erred while convicting the accused, without

appreciating the evidence in the right prospective.

(c)There are apparent contradictions and omissions in the statements

of the witnesses and as such, evidence, brought on record by the

side of the prosecution cannot be relied upon.

(d)Only related and interested witnesses have been examined,

although the independent witnesses were available, but,

purposely, they were not examined by the prosecution and their

evidence is neither reliable, nor credible which creates a doubt in

the prosecution story.

(e)Medical evidence is inconsistent with the ocular evidence.

(f)The presence of the eye witnesses is doubtful and due to

animosity, the witnesses are telling lie against the accused.

(g)Recovery of the weapons has not been properly proved.

(h)There was delay in lodging the FIR as the incident according to

prosecution case, being occasioned between 10:30 to 10:45 p.m.,

and FIR came to be filed in the early morning at about 4:00 a.m.

and without any satisfactory explanation, the possibility of

embellishment or exaggeration in the prosecution version on

account of such delay cannot be ruled out, as a result, the

prosecution story cannot be accepted as trustworthy.

(i)So far as accused no. 2 Manoj – appellant accused is concerned, it

was submitted that, according to prosecution case, Manoj had

caused head injury with iron rod. On the same line, the accused

Amir Salat caused injuries with iron pipe on the chest of the

deceased. There are major contradictions and improvement on the

Page 16 of 30

R/CR.A/1507/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/01/2026

aspect of injury found in the testimony of eye–witnesses namely

PW-4, PW-5 and PW-6 and as per their evidence, the acquitted

accused Amir had caused injuries on the body of the deceased

with the blunt object. In such circumstances, when on the same

set of evidence, the accused no.3 Amir has been acquitted for the

charge of murder, the conviction of the appellant accused – Manoj

is not sustainable in law.

(j)In alternative, it was prayed that the complainant party despite of

repeated demand made by the accused for payment of Rs.10,000/-

towards the litigation cost, the said amount was not being

considered and on that count, there was long standing dispute

between the parties, as a result, in hit of passion, without any

intention to kill the deceased, the injury being caused and

therefore, if the prosecution case is accepted as it is, then also the

case does not fall under the definition of ‘murder’ but it would fall

under Section 304 Part I or II, which punishes the person for

culpable homicide not amounting to murder.

18.In such circumstances referred to above, the learned counsel Mr.

Barot has prayed that there being merits in these appeals and same

may be allowed and appellants accused be acquitted of all

charges. So far as alternative prayer is concerned, it was submitted

that, the appellants have undergone more than 11 years of their

jail imprisonment and if the court comes to the conclusion that,

the accused appellants are guilty of culpable homicide not

amounting to murder under Section 304 Indian Penal Code then

Page 17 of 30

R/CR.A/1507/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/01/2026

sentenced may be altered and/or modified to the extent already

undergone.

19.On the other hand, opposing the appeals, the learned Additional

Public Prosecutor Mr. J.K. Shah, has made the following

submissions :

(i)The prosecution has been able to prove the charge of murder and

causing injury to the witnesses by sufficient, cogent and

acceptable evidence against the appellants accused.

(ii)The testimony of eye-witnesses PW-4 complainant, PW-5 –

Bhavnaben and PW-6 child witness – Mohini, are trustworthy

and worthy of credence on the aspect of complicity of accused in

the alleged crime and their version are consistent with respect to

the injury caused by the accused with the respective weapons

and as such there is no material contradiction found in their

evidence and therefore, the credibility on the aspect of their

presence cannot be doubted as in the night hours, everyone was

present in the house and their presence at the spot was natural.

The wife of the deceased and daughter sustained injuries in the

said incident, as they intervened to rescue the deceased and their

injuries being proved by examined treating Doctor PW-8 and

therefore, their presence at the spot cannot be denied. There was

no motive for them to falsely involved the accused in the serious

charge of murder and let go the real assailants. At relevant time,

except the witnesses, no one had witnessed the incident and

therefore, though the witnesses are related to each other but their

Page 18 of 30

R/CR.A/1507/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/01/2026

evidence cannot be discarded merely on the ground that they are

interested or close relative of the deceased.

(iii)There is no variance between medical evidence and ocular

evidence, as the PM doctor has rightly opined that the internal

injuries mentioned in column no. 18 and 25 could be possible

with the blunt object and therefore, as per the settled law, the

oral evidence given as to get primacy over the medical evidence,

as claimed to have been inflicted.

(iv)The plea of parity with the co-accused Amir Salat (A3), cannot

be extended to the accused Manoj, as the accused Amir did not

have caused any head injury on the body of the deceased.

(v)No case is made out to bring the case within the ambit of any

exception to Section 300 as the fatal injuries with intention to

kill were being inflicted by dangerous weapons.

(vi)There was no delay and the delay of 3 to 4 hours being

sufficiently explained by the complainant and therefore, on this

count, the reliable and trustworthy evidence involving the

appellants accused herein cannot be discarded.

20.In such circumstances, the State has prayed that there being no

merits in the present appeals and same may be dismissed.

21.We have heard at length learned counsels appearing for the

respective parties and perused the case records.

22.Undoubtedly, it is a case of homicide, as there is no dispute that

the death of the deceased was not homicidal and natural. The

Page 19 of 30

R/CR.A/1507/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/01/2026

question is whether the prosecution has been able to prove the

case against the appellants beyond reasonable doubt?

23.The prosecution case rested on the three eye-witnesses namely

PW-4 Varsing Dhanjibhai Halpati, PW-5 Bhavnaben Bharatbhai,

and PW-6 – Mohini Bharatbhai. The deceased Bharat and his

family was living adjacent to the house of PW-4 Varsing Halpati

and the houses of the accused were also situated in the same

location of city Vapi. The incident in question occurred on

27.01.2014 at about 10-30 to 10-45 pm. It is in these background

facts and upon close scrutiny of the aforesaid three witnesses, we

are of the considered opinion that, their presence at the spot

cannot be doubted as in the night area, their presence seems to be

natural at their home. The PW-4 is the father of the deceased and

at relevant time he was in rest, sleeping on the coat. It is not in

dispute that, before 12 years of the incident, the accused Ramesh,

who is brother of PW-4 filed a criminal complaint against the PW-

4 and others for causing injury. It is the case of the prosecution

that the accused Ramesh was asking Rs.10,000/- from PW-4

toward litigation cost for which, there was no response and this

was the reason for the accused, to come at the house of the PW-4.

It is relevant to note that the deceased Bharat was nowhere in

picture and he did not have promised nor it was claimed that the

deceased was responsible for Rs.10,000/-. The another witness

PW-5 being wife of the deceased was inside the room and was

taking her dinner with her two daughters and after hearing the

Page 20 of 30

R/CR.A/1507/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/01/2026

shouting of demanding of Rs.10000/-, she came out in the open

area of the house, where the deceased was standing. In such

circumstances, the witnesses had an opportunity to closely seen

the accused. The witnesses in their respective testimonies have

clearly stated that the accused Ramesh caused the head injury with

the dagger, whereas, the accused Manoj – appellant armed with

iron rod caused head injury. This version of witnesses being

corroborated by medical evidence. The cause of death was

hemorrhagic shock due to head injury. The witnesses, who

intervened to rescue the deceased also sustained injuries. Thus, in

our opinion the evidence of witnesses read as a whole appears to

have a ring of truth and there is no reason for them to falsely

implicate the appellants accused. It is settled position of law that

ordinarily, a close relatives would be the last to screen the real

culprit and falsely implicate the innocent person. We do not find

any discrepancy in their evidence on the aspect of involvement of

the accused and number of injuries caused by them and therefore,

the version of the witnesses is probable and as such there is no

evidence on record that as a result of enmity between the parties

on the issue of due amount of Rs,10000/- the witnesses are telling

lie. Thus, therefore, though the witnesses are close relatives of the

deceased, their evidence does inspire confidence about the

presence of the accused at the scene of occurrence and injuries

caused by the accused on the body of the deceased. It is also

relevant to note that at the time of incident, no one present from

the neighbourhood and therefore, the plea of non-examination of

Page 21 of 30

R/CR.A/1507/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/01/2026

material witnesses would not create a dent in the prosecution case.

Even otherwise, the prosecution is not bound to produce all

witnesses as material witnesses considered necessary by the

prosecution for unfolding the story alone need be produced

without unnecessary multiplication of witnesses. So far as

evidence of child witness Mohini PW:6 is concerned, the Trial

Court appreciated her maturity to understand the questions and

answers to be given and thereafter, after administering the oath to

her, the Court had proceeded to record her evidence. In our

opinion, after close scrutiny of the evidence of child witness

PW:6, we do not find any infirmity that she had deposed under the

influence of her mother or anyone and we noticed that there is a

ring of truth in her evidence and in the cross examination also, her

version has not been shaken so far incident is concerned and her

evidence has been corroborated by the other eye-witnesses.

24.For the reasons aforementioned, the presence of the witnesses at

the place is proved and established and considering the area where

the incident occurred, it would be possible for them to witness the

facts deposed by them and there is no anything inherently,

improbable or unreliable in their evidence as their version on the

aspect of identification of the accused and injuries caused by them

on the body of the deceased are consistent and on material

particulars, they corroborated to each other.

Page 22 of 30

R/CR.A/1507/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/01/2026

25.It is the contention of defence that there was a dark due to winter

season and it could not be possible for the witnesses to visualize

the incident. We do not find any substance in the submissions as

the witnesses have categorically stated that there was sufficient

light.

26.The another contention raised is that the evidence of witnesses is

totally inconsistent with the medical evidence. We have closely

scrutinized the medical evidence, more particularly the evidence

of P.M. doctor PW:7. Admittedly, two fatal external injuries

being found and noted in Column No.17 in the P.M. Report

Exh.26 and six internal injuries were being found and noted in

column nos.18 and 25 of P.M. report. The witnesses have

categorically stated that the accused Ramesh caused injuries on

the head of the deceased with weapon dagger and the accused

Manoj armed with iron road, caused injuries on the head. It was

the opinion of the doctor that the injuries noted in column nos.17,

18 and 25 were consistent with each other and the external injuries

could be possible by sharp cutting instrument and the internal

injuries could be possible by blunt object. In such circumstances,

we do not find any inconsistency between the oral and medical

evidence. It is relevant to note that accused Gopi alleged to have

inflicted a knife blow on the face of the deceased and the accused

Amir gave a blow on the chest of the deceased with iron pipe. In

such circumstances, the benefit as claimed with the co-accused

cannot required to be extended with the co-accused.

Page 23 of 30

R/CR.A/1507/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/01/2026

27.The next contention raised is that there was delay in lodging the

FIR resulted into embellishment and concoction of the story. In

the present case, the incident of 27.01.2014, occurred between

10:30 to 10:45. The deceased and the injured witness were taken

to Marvad Daman Government Hospital. In this context, the

witnesses have stated that the Daman Police advised them to

approach the Vapi Town Police Station as incident being occurred

under the jurisdiction of Vapi Town Police Station. The

complainant PW:4, came to Vapi Town Police Station in the

earlier morning at about 03:30 a.m. In such circumstances, the

delay has been properly explained by the prosecution. It is well

settled that the delay in giving the FIR by itself cannot be a

ground to doubt the prosecution case and considering the medical

emergency, it is not wise to expect from the complainant party

that they should rush to the jurisdiction police station after the

occurrence and therefore, the conduct of the complainant was

natural in approaching the Vapi Police Station for giving proper

report. Thus, therefore, considering the peculiar facts and

circumstances of the case and evidence on record, the delay of

five hours in lodging the FIR does not create a doubt about the

veracity of prosecution case and more particularly where the

eyewitnesses are reliable and trustworthy. Thus, mere a delay of

five hours would not be a ground to discard the entire prosecution

case.

Page 24 of 30

R/CR.A/1507/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/01/2026

28.In such circumstances, as referred above, it is proved and

established that the appellant accused – A1 and A2 caused fatal

injuries with the dangerous weapon to the deceased Bharatbhai, as

a result, he succumbed to the injuries.

29.The next question that arises for consideration is whether the

accused appellants are guilty for the offence of murder as defined

under Section 300 Indian Penal Code or death cause was culpable

homicide not amount to murder under Section 304 Indian Penal

Code ?

30.We have carefully examined the oral as well as medical evidence.

The appellants accused are the author of the crime. The cause of

death was hemorrhagic shock due to head injuries. The accused

A1 Ramesh had stabbed the deceased on his head with dagger and

the accused Manoj A2 hit the head with iron rod and the injuries

as per the opinion of the doctor were sufficient in ordinate course

to cause the death.

31.It is the prosecution to prove the case against the accused that he

has committed murder as defined under Section 300 of the IPC.

Section 300 provides that, culpable homicide is ‘murder’, if the

act by which the death is caused is done with the intention of

causing death or if it is done with the intention of causing such

bodily injury, as the offender knows to be likely to cause death or

if it is done with the intention of causing bodily injury and the said

Page 25 of 30

R/CR.A/1507/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/01/2026

injury intended to be inflicted is sufficient in ordinary course of

nature to cause death or the accused knows that, it is so

imminently dangerous that it must, in all probability, caused death

or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death.

32.Bearing in mind the legal provision and having regard to the facts

and evidence on record, the injuries caused on the body of the

deceased was on the vital parts and same was being caused with

dangerous weapon like dagger and iron rod. The appellants

accused carried with the dagger and iron rod.

As per the opinion of the doctor, the external injuries found

on the head were sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause

death and it could be possible by the weapons dagger and iron rod.

The PM doctor also clarified that, the injuries mentioned in

column no. 17 of the PM report, could be possible by sharp

cutting instrument, whereas the injuries mentioned in column nos.

18 and 25 could be possible with blunt object. In such

circumstances, causing injuries on the vital parts with dangerous

weapons lead to inference that the accused with all intent inflict

that particular injuries and it is not the case of the accused that, the

injuries inflicted were unintentional and intended to inflict on the

other part of the body but due to movement of the deceased, the

injuries inflicted on the head and other part by accident. The

intention of the accused can also be gathered from the

circumstances like, their presence at the spot with the dangerous

Page 26 of 30

R/CR.A/1507/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/01/2026

weapons, the dispute of Rs.10,000/- was with PW-4 and despite of

this, the deceased was victimized and was fatally assaulted. It is

settled position of law that, when a person performs an act, he is

attributed with the intention to cause the natural consequences,

that follows from the act performed. We have also noticed the

factum of demanding Rs.10,000/- by the accused from PW-4. The

criminal case still pending with the competent court and why the

accused Ramesh demanding Rs.10,000/- that has not been cleared

by either side and therefore, it cannot be said that without

premeditation, in a sudden fight, upon sudden quarrel, in a hit of

passion, the act was committed.

33.We may profitably refer the law laid down by the Supreme Court

in the case of Virsa Singh, AIR 1958 SC 465. In the said

judgment, it was held that, a culpable homicide is a murder under

Section 300 clause Thirdly, if the prosecution should establish

four elements (i) the presence of bodily injury, (ii) nature of such

bodily injury (iii) intention on the part of accused to inflict such

bodily injury, that is to say, that it was not accidental or

unintentional or that some other kind of injury was intended, (iv)

the injury was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of

nature. The Supreme Court on the question as to how the intention

to be inferred, has succinctly stated :

"In considering whether the intention was to inflict the

injury found to have been inflicted, the enquiry necessarily

proceeds on broad lines as, for example, whether there was

an intention to strike at a vital or a dangerous spot, and

Page 27 of 30

R/CR.A/1507/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/01/2026

whether with sufficient force to cause the kind of injury

found to have been inflicted x x x x The question is not

whether the prisoner intended to inflict a serious injury or

a trivial one but whether he intended to inflict the injury

that is proved to be present. If he can show that he did not,

or if the totality of the circumstances justify such an

inference, then, of course, the intent that the section

requires is not proved. But if there is nothing beyond the

injury and the fact that the appellant inflicted it, the only

possible inference is that he intended to inflict it. Whether

he knew of its seriousness, or intended some consequences,

is neither here nor there. The question, so far as the

intention is concerned, is not whether he intended to kill, or

to inflict an injury of a particular degree of seriousness,

but whether he intended to inflict the injury in question;

and once the existence of the injury is proved the intention

to cause it will be presumed unless the evidence or the

circumstances warrant an opposite conclusion. But

whether the intention is there or not is one of fact and not

one of law. Whether the wound is serious or otherwise, and

if serious, how serious, is a totally separate and distinct

question and has nothing to do with the question whether

the prisoner intended to inflict the injury in question."

34.In the present case, as discussed above, the injuries were caused

with a dangerous weapons on the vital parts of the body and there

were fractures on both the side of parietal bones with hemorrhage

and the manner in which, the accused assembled near the house of

the deceased, the only possible inference would that, the accused

intended to inflict the blows on vital parts of the deceased. In

other words, the act was done with an intention of causing such

bodily injury and bodily injury intended to be inflicted were

sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause death and while

inflicting such injury, the accused had taken undue advantage of

Page 28 of 30

R/CR.A/1507/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/01/2026

the situation and acted in unusual manner.

35.For the aforementioned reasons, we came to conclusion that, the

act of the accused fall within the clause thirdly and fourthly of

Section 300 of the IPC, and would not fall in any exception to

Section 300 of the IPC and same is read as under :

“Section 300 : xxxxxx

Secondly, .........…

Thirdly, : if it is done with intention of causing bodily

injury to any person, and the bodily injury intended to be

inflicted is sufficient in the ordinary course of action to

cause death

or

Fourthly, - if the person committing the act knows that, it

is so imminently dangerous that it must in all probability,

cause death or such bodily injury as it likely to cause death

and commit such an act, without any excuse for incurring

the risk of causing death or such injuries as aforesaid.”

36.In view of the aforesaid discussions, after re-analysis and re-

appreciation of the evidence and on perusal of the impugned

judgment of conviction, we are satisfied that, prosecution has

proved its case with sufficient oral and documentary evidence,

beyond all reasonable doubt, that the appellants were the author of

the crime and the trial Court has rightly found the appellants

accused guilty for act of murder punishable under Section 302

read with Section 114 of the IPC. We do not find any scope for

interference with the findings of conviction and sentence recorded

by the trial Court.

Page 29 of 30

R/CR.A/1507/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/01/2026

37.The acquittal appeal is being filed against the acquittal of accused

Nos. 3 and 4 for the charge of murder. The trial Court while

acquitting the accused, did not find acceptable and trustworthy

evidence against the accused for proving the charge of murder.

We have also examined the evidence on this aspect and we do not

find any legal infirmity, perversity or fundamental error in

appreciation of the evidence undertaken by the trial Court and

therefore, the view taken by the trial Court is possible and

plausible view and the trial Court was justified in acquitting the

accused.

38.In the result, this conviction appeals being Criminal Appeal No.

1507 of 2018 and Criminal Appeal No. 228 of 2021stand

dismissed, whereas, the acquittal appeal being Criminal Appeal

No. 1553 of 2017 stands dismissed. R&P, if any, be sent back to

the trial Court forthwith.

(ILESH J. VORA,J)

(R. T. VACHHANI, J)

P.S. JOSHI

Page 30 of 30