STATE OF GUJARAT vs SHAHRUKH @CHECHI IQBALBHAI VORA

R/CR.A/2300/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/10/2026
(GJHC240667952026)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL (AGAINST ACQUITTAL) NO. 2300 of 2026

FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:


HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ILESH J. VORA

and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. T. VACHHANI

==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
SHAHRUKH @CHECHI IQBALBHAI VORA & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS VRUNDA SHAH APP for the Appellant(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ILESH J. VORA
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. T. VACHHANI

Date : 30/10/2026

ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. T. VACHHANI)
1. The present appeal is preferred by the appellant-State under
Section 419 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short,
"BNSS") against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 05.05.2025
passed by the learned 8th Additional Sessions Judge, Vadodara
(hereinafter referred to as "the Sessions Court") in Sessions Case No.203
of 2018, whereby the respondents, being original Accused Nos.1, 2, 4, 5
Page 1 of 10
Uploaded by SOMPURA MANISHKUMAR JYOTINDRA(HC00189) on Fri Oct 30 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 30 17:38:36 IST 2026

R/CR.A/2300/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/10/2026
(GJHC240667952026)
and 6, came to be acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 302
and 201 read with Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for
short, "IPC") and Sections 25(1-B)(a) and 27(2) of the Arms Act, 1959.
1.1 During the pendency of the trial, original Accused No.3, Yogendra
Chhabila Shah, expired and the proceedings qua him stood abated by
order passed below Exh.1 dated 09.01.2025. The present appeal is,
therefore, confined to original Accused Nos.1, 2, 4, 5 and 6, who are
arrayed as respondent Nos.1 to 5 respectively. For the sake of
convenience, the respondents are referred to hereinafter by their original
status before the Sessions Court.
2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case of the prosecution are that, the
deceased Bhaumik, son of the original complainant Ashvinbhai
Bhaylalbhai Patel, was residing separately and was engaged in business.
On 02.03.2018, at about 7:00 a.m., the deceased visited the house of the
complainant to fit an LED light and asked his mother to keep his tiffin
ready for the next morning. As he had forgotten the keys of his flat, his
mother handed over the keys to him at Bhayli Otla, where he came in the
Ford EcoSport car bearing Registration No.GJ-06-HL-4574.
2.1 On 03.03.2018, the mother of the deceased repeatedly tried to
contact him on his mobile phone, but the calls went unanswered. At about
9:30 a.m., the complainant found the flat of the deceased locked and the
EcoSport car missing. At about 11:30 a.m., one Soumit Akshaybhai Amin
informed the complainant that the police were making inquiries as the
said car had been found abandoned opposite Baliyadev Temple on the
Page 2 of 10
Uploaded by SOMPURA MANISHKUMAR JYOTINDRA(HC00189) on Fri Oct 30 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 30 17:38:36 IST 2026

R/CR.A/2300/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/10/2026
(GJHC240667952026)
road leading towards Pirodnagar. On reaching the spot, the complainant
noticed bloodstains inside and outside the vehicle and the sandals of the
deceased lying inside it. A missing person report came to be lodged.
2.2 On 05.03.2018, at about 3:00 p.m., on information received from
one Gaurangbhai about bloodstains near an open vent of the industrial
wastewater canal running from Ampad towards Lakdikui, a search was
undertaken and, at about 5:30 p.m., near Hinglot sim, a decomposed and
bloated dead body was found inside the canal beneath a drainage slab.
The body was identified as that of Bhaumik from his physical features
and tattoos, including a tattoo bearing the name "Bhaumik". First
Information Report being C.R. No.09 of 2018 came to be registered with
Vadodara Taluka Police Station, initially against unknown persons, for the
offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 IPC.
3. In pursuance of the complaint lodged by the complainant,
investigating agency recorded statements of the witnesses, collected
relevant evidence in form of medical evidence and drawn various
Panchnamas and other relevant evidence for the purpose of proving the
offence. After having found material against the respondent accused,
charge-sheet came to be filed in the Court of concerned learned JMFC.
As said Court lacked jurisdiction to try the offence, it committed the case
to the concerned Sessions Court as provided under section 209 of the
Code.
4. Upon committal of the case to the learned Sessions Court, learned
Sessions Judge framed charge against the respondents-accused for the
Page 3 of 10
Uploaded by SOMPURA MANISHKUMAR JYOTINDRA(HC00189) on Fri Oct 30 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 30 17:38:36 IST 2026

R/CR.A/2300/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/10/2026
(GJHC240667952026)
aforesaid offence. The respondent accused pleaded not guilty and claimed
to be tried
5. In order to bring home charge, the prosecution has examined
various witnesses and also produced various documentary evidence
before the learned Sessions Court, as has been described in the impugned
judgment and order.
6. On conclusion of evidence on the part of the prosecution, the trial
Court put various incriminating circumstances appearing in the evidence
to the respondent accused so as to obtain his explanation/answer as
provided u/s 313 of the Code. In the further statement, the respondent
accused denied all incriminating circumstances appearing against him as
false and further stated that he is innocent and false case has been filed
against him. After hearing both the sides and after analysis of evidence
adduced by the prosecution, the learned Sessions Judge acquitted the
respondent accused of the offences, for which he was tried, as the
prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt.
7. We have heard learned APP appearing for the appellant – State of
Gujarat and have minutely examined the documentary evidence provided
to us by learned Advocate during the course of hearing.
7.1 Learned Advocate appearing for the appellant – State has submitted
that the learned Trial Court has failed to appreciate the oral and
documentary evidence adduced by the prosecution in its correct
perspective. It is submitted that the impugned judgment reflects a
Page 4 of 10
Uploaded by SOMPURA MANISHKUMAR JYOTINDRA(HC00189) on Fri Oct 30 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 30 17:38:36 IST 2026

R/CR.A/2300/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/10/2026
(GJHC240667952026)
complete non-application of judicial mind, and the appreciation of
evidence is perverse, arbitrary, and contrary to settled principles of
criminal jurisprudence. It is further submitted that the Learned Sessions
has overlooked material evidence and thereby committed grave error in
acquitting the accused.
7.2 It is further submitted by learned APP that the impugned judgment
and order of acquittal is contrary to the statutory provisions, settled law
laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, and the evidence brought on
record. The Sessions Court has ignored crucial material including the
post-mortem report, circumstantial links, motive, recovery panchnamas,
and corroborative witness statements. It is submitted that the Learned
Sessions Court has committed a serious error in not holding the accused
guilty despite strong prima facie evidence, including motive, prior threats,
last-seen circumstances, recovery of incriminating articles, and consistent
testimonies of prosecution witnesses. The Sessions Court ought to have
drawn proper inferences from the chain of circumstances, which
unerringly point towards the guilt of the accused.
7.3 It is further submitted by learned APP that the Learned Sessions
Court has misread, misinterpreted, and wrongly discarded the material
evidence adduced by the prosecution. It is submitted that the appreciation
of facts, circumstances, and evidence is perverse and wholly
unreasonable, resulting in an erroneous acquittal. It is submitted that the
Sessions Court failed to consider the cumulative effect of the entire chain
of circumstances which were complete and consistent, thereby warranting
conviction.
Page 5 of 10
Uploaded by SOMPURA MANISHKUMAR JYOTINDRA(HC00189) on Fri Oct 30 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 30 17:38:36 IST 2026

R/CR.A/2300/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/10/2026
(GJHC240667952026)
7.4 It is further submitted by the learned APP that the learned Court
has erred in discarding the evidence of the complainant, who had no
motive or reason to falsely implicate the accused. It is submitted that the
testimony of the complainant is natural, credible, and consistent with the
prosecution case and the Sessions Court has failed to appreciate that sole
testimony of a reliable witness can form the basis of conviction.
8. Having heard the learned APP appearing for the appellant – State
and having examined the impugned judgment and order of acquittal
rendered by the learned Sessions Court, as well as, the evidence so
adduced by the prosecution, it would appear that the prosecution has
failed to prove that respondent No.1 – org. accused No.1 was doing the
partnership business and they had borrowed the money from the
complainant and his son and when they demanded their money back, the
accused persons had hatched a conspiracy to kill them and as a part
thereof, it was decided to give Rs.3,00,000/- to the org. accused No.4 and
5 and thereafter transferred the amount of Rs.30,000/- in the account of
org. accused No.5 and mobile phone was given to org. accused No.4.
From the evidence so adduced before the Court, it also appears that the
prosecution has failed to prove the factum as to commission of murder of
the complainant and to destroy the evidence after commission of the
crime. The learned Sessions Court has rightly come to the conclusion
that the prosecution has failed to prove the factum as to last seen together
of the accused persons prior to and after the commission of the offence
and this Court is in complete agreement with the said finding. It would be
apt to note that in absence of any evidence connecting the accused with
the deceased during the crucial period between the time he was last seen
Page 6 of 10
Uploaded by SOMPURA MANISHKUMAR JYOTINDRA(HC00189) on Fri Oct 30 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 30 17:38:36 IST 2026

R/CR.A/2300/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/10/2026
(GJHC240667952026)
alive and the time his car and body were found leaves a significant gap in
the chain, which, in the opinion of this Court has not been filled by any
other proved circumstance. The prosecution case that the deceased was
"called out" and taken in the car by the accused remains wholly
unproved.
9. It would also appear that the footage was scientifically examined
by PW-50, Kushal Master, and was accompanied by a certificate under
Section 65-B of the Evidence Act. Compliance with Section 65-B of the
Evidence Act pertains to the admissibility of the electronic record;
however, admissibility is distinct from the probative value of the
evidence. Even assuming that the footage is admissible and genuine, it
establishes, at the highest, that accused No. 4 was present with accused
No.1 at the latter’s shop on the day preceding the incident. Rhythm
Electronics was the business premises of accused No.1 and, according to
the prosecution itself, also of the deceased. The presence of a person at a
business establishment during working hours and a conversation lasting
approximately eight minutes are innocuous circumstances which, in the
absence of any evidence as to the subject matter of the conversation, are
equally consistent with innocence. The prosecution has relied upon the
footage only to establish association and not to prove the contents of the
conversation. However, mere association, by itself, does not establish the
conspiracy and to prove the conspiracy the prosecution has to lead the
cogent and substantial evidence to link the accused with the crime. This
Court, therefore, does not find any infirmity in the view taken by the
Sessions Court that this circumstance, either by itself or in conjunction
with the CDR evidence, does not establish the alleged conspiracy.
Page 7 of 10
Uploaded by SOMPURA MANISHKUMAR JYOTINDRA(HC00189) on Fri Oct 30 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 30 17:38:36 IST 2026

R/CR.A/2300/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/10/2026
(GJHC240667952026)
10. Now, insofar as the argument of the learned APP that the case on
hand rests on a circumstantial evidence and the prosecution has
successfully completed the entire link to connect the accused with the
crime, it would be apt to note that while leading the case, the prosecution
is required to establish mainly three links of chain (i) motive; (ii) last
seen; and (iii) recovery of weapon of assault, showing involvement of the
accused. Thus, while dealing with the evidence on record, the Court
concerned is required to appreciate as to whether the aforesaid three
aspect is completed to prove the case of prosecution or not and if no then
the benefit of that would go to the accused as the prosecution has failed to
prove its case beyond reasonable doubt while missing to complete the
entire of circumstance. In a case of circumstantial evidence, the chain is
required to be completed as mandated under the law so as to indicate the
guilt of the accused while discarding any other theory of the crime. If one
of the link goes missing and not proved, in view of the settled law on the
point, the conviction is required to be interfered with.
11. In view of the settled law that one must look for a complete chain
of circumstances and not on snapped and scattered links which do not
make a complete sequence. The circumstances from which the conclusion
of guilt is drawn should be fully proved, and such circumstances must be
conclusive in nature. Moreover, all the circumstances should be complete,
and there should be no gap left in the chain of evidence; in the present
case, the chain is not completed. Under the circumstances, the learned
Sessions Court has rightly acquitted the respondent accused for the
elaborate reasons stated in the impugned judgment and we also endorse
the view/finding of the learned trial Judge leading to the acquittal.
Page 8 of 10
Uploaded by SOMPURA MANISHKUMAR JYOTINDRA(HC00189) on Fri Oct 30 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 30 17:38:36 IST 2026

R/CR.A/2300/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/10/2026
(GJHC240667952026)
12. It is a cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence that in an
acquittal appeal if other view is possible, then also, the appellate Court
cannot substitute its own view by reversing the acquittal into conviction,
unless the findings of the Sessions Court are perverse, contrary to the
material on record, palpably wrong, manifestly erroneous or
demonstrably unsustainable. In the instant case, the learned APP
appearing for the appellant – State has not been able to point out to us as
to how the findings recorded by the learned Sessions Court are perverse,
contrary to material on record, palpably wrong, manifestly erroneous or
demonstrably unsustainable.
13. At this juncture, it is apt to refer the judgment of the Supreme
Court, in the case of Tulasareddi @ Mudakappa & Anr. v. The State of
Karnataka & Ors., 2026 INSC 67 , the relevant paragraphs of which read
as under:
“29. From the aforesaid decisions rendered by this Court, it can be said
that if two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the evidence
on record, the Appellate Court should not disturb the findings of acquittal
recorded by the Trial Court. Further, if the view taken is a possible view,
the Appellate Court cannot overturn the order of acquittal on the ground
that another view was also possible. The following principles have to be
kept in mind by the Appellate Court while dealing with the appeals against
an order of acquittal:
(a) whether the judgment of acquittal suffers from patent perversity,
(b) whether the judgment is based on misreading/omission to
consider the material evidence on record,
(c) an order of acquittal is to be interfered with only when there are
“compelling and substantial reasons” for doing so. If the order is
“clearly unreasonable”, it is a compelling reason for
interference.’
(d) the appellate court, while deciding an appeal against acquittal,
after reappreciating the evidence, is required to consider whether
the view taken by the trial court is a possible view which could
have been taken on the basis of the evidence on record,
(e) if the view taken is a possible view, the appellate court cannot
Page 9 of 10
Uploaded by SOMPURA MANISHKUMAR JYOTINDRA(HC00189) on Fri Oct 30 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 30 17:38:36 IST 2026

R/CR.A/2300/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/10/2026
(GJHC240667952026)
overturn the order of acquittal on the ground that another view
was also possible, and
(f) the appellate court can interfere with the order of acquittal only if
it comes to a finding that the only conclusion which can be
recorded on the basis of the evidence on record was that the guilt
of the accused was proved beyond a reasonable doubt and no
other conclusion was possible. ”
14. Thus, as observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in catena of
decisions, while dealing with the judgment of acquittal, unless reasoning
by the learned trial Court is found to be perverse, the acquittal cannot be
upset. It is further observed that High Court's interference in such appeal
in somewhat circumscribed and if the view taken by the learned Sessions
Court is possible on the evidence, the High Court should stay its hands
and not interfere in the matter in the belief that if it had been the trial
Court, it might have taken a different view.
15. In light of the above legal position and for the reasons recorded in
the foregoing paragraphs, the present appeal fails and is accordingly
dismissed.
(ILESH J. VORA,J)
(R. T. VACHHANI, J)
sompura
Page 10 of 10
Uploaded by SOMPURA MANISHKUMAR JYOTINDRA(HC00189) on Fri Oct 30 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 30 17:38:36 IST 2026