Gujarat High Court Dismisses State Appeal Against Acquittal in Murder Case Due to Unreliable Witnesses and Lack of Motive. Acquittal of Accused Under Section 302 IPC Upheld as Prosecution Failed to Prove Guilt Beyond Reasonable Doubt.

High Court: Gujarat High Court In Favour of Accused

Admin

2026-05-19 04:52:00

Font size:

Case Note & Summary

The State of Gujarat filed an appeal under Section 378(1)(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, challenging the judgment and order of acquittal dated 30.09.2002 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Panchamahal Godhra, in Sessions Case No. 327 of 2001. The respondents, Ganpatsinh Raijibhai Rathod and another, were acquitted of the charge under Section 302 read with Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code for the murder of Ganpatsinh Himmatsinh Rathod. The incident occurred on 27.06.2001 at about 17:30 hours near the house of witness Udesinh Mangalsinh Rathod, over a boundary dispute. The deceased intervened in a quarrel between the accused and witness Maganbhai Mangalbhai Rathod. According to the charge, accused No.1 struck the deceased on the forehead with an axe, and accused No.2 assaulted him with a stick on various body parts, causing fatal injuries. The trial court acquitted the accused, finding the prosecution witnesses unreliable. The High Court, after re-appreciating the evidence, held that the trial court's findings were not perverse. The eyewitnesses, including the complainant and other relatives, were found to be interested witnesses with material contradictions and improvements. The medical evidence did not corroborate the ocular version regarding the number and nature of injuries. The motive for the crime was not established. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the acquittal was upheld.

Headnote

A) Criminal Procedure Code - Appeal against Acquittal - Section 378 CrPC - Scope of Interference - The High Court in an appeal against acquittal can interfere only if the trial court's findings are perverse or unreasonable, not merely because a different view is possible. The presumption of innocence in favor of the accused is strengthened by acquittal. (Paras 1, 14)

B) Indian Penal Code - Murder - Section 302 r.w. Section 114 IPC - Appreciation of Evidence - The prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. In this case, the eyewitnesses were found unreliable due to contradictions, improvements, and lack of corroboration. The medical evidence did not support the ocular version. Motive was not established. Hence, acquittal was upheld. (Paras 2-13)

Issue of Consideration

Whether the judgment of acquittal passed by the trial court was perverse or unreasonable, warranting interference by the High Court in an appeal under Section 378 CrPC.

Final Decision

The High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the acquittal of the respondents.

Law Points

Appeal against acquittal
Section 378 CrPC
presumption of innocence
standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt
appreciation of evidence
credibility of witnesses
motive
Section 302 IPC
Section 114 IPC

Case Details

2026:GUJHC:3569-DB

R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 434 of 2003

2026-01-17

Gita Gopi, D. M. Vyas

2026:GUJHC:3569-DB

Rohan H. Raval (APP for appellant), YM Thakkar (for respondents)

State of Gujarat

Ganpatsinh Raijibhai Rathod & Anr.

Nature of Litigation

Criminal appeal against acquittal in a murder case.

Remedy Sought

The State sought reversal of the acquittal and conviction of the respondents for murder.

Filing Reason

The State challenged the trial court's acquittal of the accused for the murder of Ganpatsinh Himmatsinh Rathod.

Previous Decisions

The trial court (Additional Sessions Judge, Panchamahal Godhra) acquitted the accused in Sessions Case No. 327 of 2001 on 30.09.2002.

Issues

Whether the trial court's judgment of acquittal was perverse or unreasonable. Whether the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt.

Submissions/Arguments

The APP argued that the trial court erred in acquitting the accused despite credible eyewitness testimony and medical evidence. The defense argued that the witnesses were unreliable, contradictions existed, and the prosecution failed to prove motive.

Ratio Decidendi

In an appeal against acquittal, the High Court can interfere only if the trial court's findings are perverse or unreasonable. The prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Here, the eyewitnesses were unreliable, medical evidence did not corroborate the ocular version, and motive was not established. Hence, the acquittal was upheld.

Judgment Excerpts

The State under Section 378(1)(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 has challenged the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the Court of Additional Session Judge, Panchamahal Godhra in Sessions Case No. 327 of 2001 dated 30.09.2002. The charge that was drawn below exhibit–5 against two accused was with the effect that on 27.06.2001, at about 17:30 hours... Learned APP Mr. Rohan H. Raval, submitted that the trial court had erred in acquitting the accused.

Procedural History

The trial court acquitted the accused on 30.09.2002. The State filed an appeal under Section 378 CrPC on an unspecified date. The High Court heard the appeal and delivered judgment on 17.01.2026.