STATE OF GUJARAT vs GANPATSINH SURSINH PARMAR

R/CR.A/1502/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/10/2026
(GJHC240373602003)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1502 of 2003

FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:


HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE GITA GOPI
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J. L. ODEDRA

==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
√
==========================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
GANPATSINH SURSINH PARMAR
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR MANAN MAHETA APP for the Appellant(s) No. 1
NOTICE SERVED for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE GITA GOPI
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J. L. ODEDRA

Date : 17/10/2026
JUDGMENT
(PER : HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE GITA GOPI)
1. The State under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 (for short ‘Cr.P.C.’) challenges the judgment
and order of acquittal dated 11.08.2003 passed by the
th
Additional Sessions Judge, 5 Fast Track Court, Kheda at
Nadiyad in Sessions Case No.136 of 1999. The respondent
faced the trial under Section 307 and 498A of the Indian Penal
Code (for short ‘I.P.C.’),
Page 1 of 6
Uploaded by MR PANKAJ KUMAR PRASAD(HC00967) on Sat Oct 17 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 17 17:51:57 IST 2026

R/CR.A/1502/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/10/2026
(GJHC240373602003)
2. Learned APP Mr. Manan Maheta submitted that as per
the trial there are about five statements, which were recorded
of the complainant-victim as wife of the respondent, and thus
the learned Judge considering the inconsistency in the
multiple statements of the victim, disbelieved the case and
acquitted the accused.
2.1 Learned APP Mr. Maheta submitted that the learned
Judge has erred in not considering the statements, which the
victim has given in presence of the Executive Magistrate. Mr.
Maheta, learned APP submitted that the sanctity of the
statement was required to be considered and the fact that the
statement would have been recorded independently without
any influence of the respondent, and the said statement was
sufficient to be considered for conviction of the respondent,
where she had alleged that it was her husband, who had
poured kerosene on her and had burned her.
2.2 Learned APP Mr. Maheta has referred to the testimony
of the complainant as a victim. The statement, Exh.26, before
the Executive Magistrate and the testimony of other
witnesses, who according to learned APP has corroborated
the version of the complainant.
3. We have perused the testimonies, statements and the
observation of the learned Judge, while acquitting the
accused.
4. The learned Sessions Judge has noted that there are
about five statements of the complainant as an injured before
Page 2 of 6
Uploaded by MR PANKAJ KUMAR PRASAD(HC00967) on Sat Oct 17 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 17 17:51:57 IST 2026

R/CR.A/1502/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/10/2026
(GJHC240373602003)
the Doctor at Referral Hospital and Community Center dated
17.09.1998 at about 11:30 in the afternoon, where she had
stated before the Doctor that she got burned, while she was
cooking in the afternoon. In another statement on 17.09.1998
at about 2:00 in the afternoon before Doctor Rajeshkumar
Jashbhai Patel in Municipal General Hospital, Borsad, there
too, she had referred of getting burn, while cooking. The third
statement is dated 17.09.1998, which was before the P.S.O.,
Virsad and according to the statement, on 16.09.1998 at about
4:00, because of intense cold, she had burned woods and was
putting cow dungs cakes and suddenly the fire got intense and
therefore her ‘petticoat’ and ‘sari’ got burned causing the
injury. The fourth statement was before the Executive
Magistrate on 26.09.1998 at 5:00 in the evening and before
the Magistrate, Borsad, the victim complainant has made a
reference to the cause of her injury, as the same was alighted
with match sticks by her husband by pouring kerosene. The
fifth statement was recorded on 27.09.1998 after 11:00,
where she has again reaffirmed the statement as was given
before the Executive Magistrate alleging that it was the
husband, who had poured kerosene and had burned her.
5. The learned Sessions Judge, thus observed that there
were multiple statements of the victim and were not
consistent, and that contradictory statement has been given.
6. We also found that the victim has not given a consistent
statement. In one of the statement before the Doctor on
17.09.1998, the history was that a Khadiya (lamp) had fallen
Page 3 of 6
Uploaded by MR PANKAJ KUMAR PRASAD(HC00967) on Sat Oct 17 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 17 17:51:57 IST 2026

R/CR.A/1502/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/10/2026
(GJHC240373602003)
on her body while cooking food and she got burned on the
lower part involving the middle of thigh to the middle part of
leg. The total percentage of burns injury, as recorded in the
injury certificate, Exh.11, is of 20% to 25%, wherein too the
history is about burns while cooking. The injured version has
to be consistent inspiring confidence for the Court to believe,
which was not so in the present case.
7. In the case of Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka ,
(2007) 4 SCC 415 it was held as under:
“ 42. From the above decisions, in our considered
view, the following general principles regarding
powers of the appellate court while dealing with an
appeal against an order of acquittal emerge:
(1) An appellate court has full power to review,
reappreciate and reconsider the evidence upon
which the order of acquittal is founded.
(2) The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 puts no
limitation, restriction or condition on exercise of
such power and an appellate court on the evidence
before it may reach its own conclusion, both on
questions of fact and of law.
(3) Various expressions, such as, “substantial and
compelling reasons”, “good and sufficient grounds”,
“very strong circumstances”, “distorted
conclusions”, “glaring mistakes”, etc. are not
intended to curtail extensive powers of an appellate
court in an appeal against acquittal. Such
phraseologies are more in the nature of “flourishes
of language” to emphasise the reluctance of an
appellate court to interfere with acquittal than to
curtail the power of the court to review the evidence
and to come to its own conclusion.
Page 4 of 6
Uploaded by MR PANKAJ KUMAR PRASAD(HC00967) on Sat Oct 17 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 17 17:51:57 IST 2026

R/CR.A/1502/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/10/2026
(GJHC240373602003)
(4) An appellate court, however, must bear in mind
that in case of acquittal, there is double presumption
in favour of the accused. Firstly, the presumption of
innocence is available to him under the fundamental
principle of criminal jurisprudence that every person
shall be presumed to be innocent unless he is proved
guilty by a competent court of law. Secondly, the
accused having secured his acquittal, the
presumption of his innocence is further reinforced,
reaffirmed and strengthened by the trial court.
(5) If two reasonable conclusions are possible on the
basis of the evidence on record, the appellate court
should not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded
by the trial court.”
8. In the case of H.D. Sundara v. State of Karnataka ,
[ (2023) 9 SCC 581 ], the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as
under:
“8. In this appeal, we are called upon to consider the
legality and validity of the impugned judgment
[State of Karnataka v. H.K. Mariyappa, 2010
SCC OnLine Kar 5591] rendered by the High
Court while deciding an appeal against acquittal
under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 (for short “CrPC”). The principles
which govern the exercise of appellate jurisdiction
while dealing with an appeal against acquittal under
Section 378 CrPC can be summarised as follows:
8.1. The acquittal of the accused further strengthens
the presumption of innocence;
8.2. The appellate court, while hearing an appeal
against acquittal, is entitled to reappreciate the oral
and documentary evidence;
8.3. The appellate court, while deciding an appeal
against acquittal, after re-appreciating 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;
8.4. If the view taken is a possible view, the appellate
Page 5 of 6
Uploaded by MR PANKAJ KUMAR PRASAD(HC00967) on Sat Oct 17 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 17 17:51:57 IST 2026

R/CR.A/1502/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/10/2026
(GJHC240373602003)
court cannot overturn the order of acquittal on the
ground that another view was also possible; and
8.5. 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.”
9. We do not find any reason to dislodge the observations
made by the learned Sessions Judge. The victim has not given
consistent version and therefore we cannot come to the
conclusion to consider as a criminal act of the husband, and
since the injured has survived, the dying declaration before
the Executive Magistrate would lose its value and the
testimony before the Court, thus would prevail, and when the
contradiction has been brought to disbelieve the evidence
before the Court, no reason remains to believe the
prosecution case.
10. In view of the observations made herein above, the
present Criminal Appeal stands dismissed. Record and
Proceeding be sent back to the concerned Trial Court
forthwith.
(GITA GOPI,J)
(J. L. ODEDRA, J)
Pankaj/34
Page 6 of 6
Uploaded by MR PANKAJ KUMAR PRASAD(HC00967) on Sat Oct 17 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 17 17:51:57 IST 2026