STATE OF GUJARAT vs NARANBHAI RUDABHAI SOLANKI
- Court
- Gujarat High Court
R/CR.A/383/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/10/2026
(GJHC240523412016)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL (AGAINST ACQUITTAL) NO. 383 of 2016
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE S.V. PINTO Sd/-
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
√
==========================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
NARANBHAI RUDABHAI SOLANKI & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR KRUTIK A PARIKH, APP for the Appellant(s) No. 1
ADVOCATE NOTICE SERVED for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1,2
BAILABLE WARRANT SERVED for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1
BAILABLE WARRANT UNSERVED for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 2
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE S.V. PINTO
Date : 26/10/2026
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. The appeal is filed by the appellant State under
Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
against the judgement and order of acquittal passed by
th
the learned 7 (Ad-hoc) Additional Sessions Judge,
Veraval, District - Junagadh (hereinafter referred to as
Page 1 of 29
Uploaded by ROHAN SONI(HC02356) on Mon Oct 26 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Oct 27 02:15:29 IST 2026
R/CR.A/383/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/10/2026
(GJHC240523412016)
“the learned Trial Court ” ) in Sessions Case No.15 of 2014
on 24.11.2015, whereby, the learned Trial Court has
acquitted the respondents for the offence punishable
under Sections 328 read with Section 114 of Indian Penal
Code, 1860.
1.1 The respondents are hereinafter referred to as
“the accused” in the rank and file as they stood in the
original case for the sake of convenience, clarity and
brevity.
2. The brief facts that emerge from the record of the
case are as under:
It is the case of the prosecution that the
2.1
complainant was allegedly having an affair with accused
No.2. On 11.04.2014, at about 12:00 noon, the
complainant was proceeding to switch on the electric
motor for the purpose of irrigating the maize crop in her
agricultural field. While she was proceeding towards her
residential house, she came across both the accused, who
Page 2 of 29
Uploaded by ROHAN SONI(HC02356) on Mon Oct 26 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Oct 27 02:15:29 IST 2026
R/CR.A/383/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/10/2026
(GJHC240523412016)
were also present in the field. The complainant thereupon
telephoned accused No.2 from his mobile phone, which
was in her possession. At that juncture, both the accused
approached her, and accused No.1 allegedly instigated
her to elope with accused No.2. Upon the complainant
refusing to do so, both the accused, in furtherance of
their common intention, allegedly compelled her to
consume one capful of some poisonous substance, as a
result of which she immediately began vomiting. On
noticing her condition, her mother rushed to her
assistance and took her to a private medical practitioner
in the village for treatment. However, as her condition
deteriorated, she was subsequently shifted to the
Government Hospital at Veraval for further treatment. It
is the further case of the prosecution that both the
accused, in collusion with each other, committed the
offences punishable under Sections 328 and 114 of the
Indian Penal Code. In this regard, the complainant lodged
Page 3 of 29
Uploaded by ROHAN SONI(HC02356) on Mon Oct 26 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Oct 27 02:15:29 IST 2026
R/CR.A/383/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/10/2026
(GJHC240523412016)
a complaint at Sutrapada Police Station, which came to
be registered as I-C.R. No. 25 of 2014 on 12.04. 2014 at
10:35 a.m.
2.2 The Investigating Officer recorded the
statements of the connected witnesses and seized the
necessary documents and after completion of
investigation, a charge-sheet came to be filed before the
Court of the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Sutrapada
and as the said offences against the accused were
exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the case was
committed to the Sessions Court, Veraval at Junagadh as
per the provisions of Section 209 of Code of Criminal
Procedure and the case was registered as Sessions Case
No.15 of 2014.
2.3 The accused were duly served with the
summons and the accused appeared before the learned
Trial Court and it was verified whether the copies of all
the police papers were provided to the accused as per the
provisions of Section 207 of the Code. A charge at Exh.20
Page 4 of 29
Uploaded by ROHAN SONI(HC02356) on Mon Oct 26 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Oct 27 02:15:29 IST 2026
R/CR.A/383/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/10/2026
(GJHC240523412016)
was framed against the accused and the statements of the
accused were recorded at Exhs.21 and 22 wherein, the
accused denied the contents of the charge and the entire
evidence of the prosecution was taken on record.
2.4 The prosecution examined 17 witnesses and
produced 14 documentary evidences on record in support
of their case and after the learned Additional Public
Prosecutor filed the closing pursis, the further statements
of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 were recorded. After the arguments of
the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and the learned
advocate for the accused were heard, the learned Trial
Court by the impugned judgement and order was pleased
to acquit both the accused from the charges levelled
against them.
3. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said
judgment and order of acquittal, the appellant - State has
filed the present appeal mainly stating that the impugned
judgment and order of acquittal passed by the learned
Trial Court is contrary to law and evidence on record and
Page 5 of 29
Uploaded by ROHAN SONI(HC02356) on Mon Oct 26 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Oct 27 02:15:29 IST 2026
R/CR.A/383/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/10/2026
(GJHC240523412016)
the learned Trial Court has not appreciated the fact that
all the witnesses have supported the case of the
prosecution and during the cross-examination, nothing
adverse has been elicited in favor of the respondents. The
case has been proved beyond reasonable doubt and the
prosecution has successfully established the case against
the respondents and the judgment and order of acquittal
is unwarranted, illegal, and without any basis in the eyes
of the law and the reasons stated while acquitting the
respondents are improper, perverse and bad in law.
Hence the impugned judgment and order passed by the
learned Trial Court deserves to be quashed and set aside.
4. Heard learned APP Mr. Krutik A. Parikh for the
appellant State. Though the bailable warrants were
served, the respondent Nos.1 and 2, have not appeared
either in person or through an advocate to make any
submissions in the matter. Perused the impugned
judgement and order of acquittal and have reappreciated
the entire evidence of the prosecution on record of the
case.
Page 6 of 29
Uploaded by ROHAN SONI(HC02356) on Mon Oct 26 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Oct 27 02:15:29 IST 2026
R/CR.A/383/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/10/2026
(GJHC240523412016)
5. Learned APP Mr. Krutik A. Parikh has taken this
Court through the entire evidence of the prosecution on
record of the case and submitted that the complainant
has fully supported the facts of his complaint. The
impugned judgement and order is perverse and learned
APP has urged this Court to quash and set aside the same
and find the respondents guilty for the offences.
6. At the outset, before discussing the facts of the
present case, it would be appropriate to refer to the
observations of the Apex Court regarding the scope of
interference in acquittal appeals in the case of
Chandrappa & Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka reported
in 2007 (4) SCC 415 , wherein, the Apex Court has
observed as under:
Recently, in Kallu Vs. State of M.P. (2006) 10 SCC 313,
this Court stated:
"While deciding an appeal against acquittal, the power
of the Appellate Court is no less than the power
exercised while hearing appeals against conviction. In
both types of appeals, the power exists to review the
entire evidence. However, one significant difference is
that an order of acquittal will not be interfered with, by
Page 7 of 29
Uploaded by ROHAN SONI(HC02356) on Mon Oct 26 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Oct 27 02:15:29 IST 2026
R/CR.A/383/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/10/2026
(GJHC240523412016)
an appellate court, where the judgment of the trial court
is based on evidence and the view taken is reasonable
and plausible. It will not reverse the decision of the trial
court merely because a different view is possible. The
appellate court will also bear in mind that there is a
presumption of innocence in favour of the accused and
the accused is entitled to get the benefit of any doubt.
Further if it decides to interfere, it should assign reasons
for differing with the decision of the trial court".
From the above decisions, in our considered view,
the following general principles regarding powers of
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 emphasize
Page 8 of 29
Uploaded by ROHAN SONI(HC02356) on Mon Oct 26 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Oct 27 02:15:29 IST 2026
R/CR.A/383/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/10/2026
(GJHC240523412016)
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.
(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 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.
7. The law with regard to acquittal appeals is well
crystallized and in acquittal appeals, there is
presumption of innocence in favour of the accused and it
has finally culminated when a case ends in an acquittal.
The learned Trial Court has appreciated all the evidence
and when the learned Trial Court has come to a
Page 9 of 29
Uploaded by ROHAN SONI(HC02356) on Mon Oct 26 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Oct 27 02:15:29 IST 2026
R/CR.A/383/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/10/2026
(GJHC240523412016)
conclusion that the prosecution has not proved the case
beyond reasonable doubts, the presumption of innocence
in favour of the accused gets strengthened. There is no
inhibition to reappreciate the evidence by the Appellate
Court but if after reappreciation, the view taken by the
learned Trial Court was a possible view, there is no
reason for the Appellate Court to interfere in the same.
8. In light of the above settled principle of law,
the evidence of the prosecution is dissected and the
PW-1 Tapubhai Mandabhai
prosecution has examined
Vaja, examined at Exh.24, and PW-2 Panchabhai
Parbatbhai Bambhania, examined at Exh.26, were
examined as panch witnesses to the panchnama of the
scene of offence, which was produced at Exh.25. Both
these witnesses did not support the case of the
prosecution and were declared hostile. Despite their
cross-examination by the learned Additional Public
Prosecutor, nothing material eliciting support for the
Page 10 of 29
Uploaded by ROHAN SONI(HC02356) on Mon Oct 26 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Oct 27 02:15:29 IST 2026
R/CR.A/383/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/10/2026
(GJHC240523412016)
prosecution case could be brought on record through
their depositions.
PW-3 Daxaben Kanabhai Khuntad, examined at
8.1
Exh.27, is the complainant herself. She deposed that on
11.04.2014, between 12:00 noon and 1:00 p.m., she was
proceeding to switch on the electric motor for irrigating
the maize crop in her agricultural field. According to her
testimony, both the accused were present in the field and
asked her to elope with accused No.2. Upon her refusal,
accused No.1 allegedly caught hold of her, while accused
No.2 gave her some poisonous substance to drink, which
emitted a foul smell. She further stated that, after freeing
herself from the hold of accused No.1, she ran away from
the place of occurrence, whereupon her mother and
brother arrived and took her to the Government Hospital
at Veraval and, thereafter, to the Government Hospital at
Junagadh for further treatment. The complainant lodged
the complaint, which has been produced at Exh.28. In
Page 11 of 29
Uploaded by ROHAN SONI(HC02356) on Mon Oct 26 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Oct 27 02:15:29 IST 2026
R/CR.A/383/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/10/2026
(GJHC240523412016)
her cross-examination, the complainant stated that the
police had written the complaint and asked her to sign it,
whereupon she affixed her signature. She admitted that
the maize crop in the field was approximately as high as
a person's head. She further admitted that she had not
stated in her complaint that the accused had asked her to
elope with accused No.2. She had also not stated therein
that accused No.1 had caught hold of her, that accused
No.2 had made her consume poison, or that she had
freed herself from their clutches and fled from the place
of occurrence. The witness further admitted that accused
No.2 was employed by her father and that several cases
under the prohibition law had been instituted against her
father.
PW-4 Kuraiben Kanabhai Khuntad, examined at
8.2
Exh.30, is the mother of the complainant. She deposed
that, at the time of the incident, she and her son were
present in the field, while her daughter had gone to
Page 12 of 29
Uploaded by ROHAN SONI(HC02356) on Mon Oct 26 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Oct 27 02:15:29 IST 2026
R/CR.A/383/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/10/2026
(GJHC240523412016)
switch on the electric motor. She stated that, upon
hearing her daughter shouting, she and her son Nagesh
proceeded towards the place from where the cries had
emanated. On reaching there, they found the accused
present and observed that her daughter was vomiting.
She brought her daughter home, and upon her husband
arriving, he called a doctor from the village. As the
doctor advised them to take the complainant to a
hospital, she was transported in a 108 ambulance to the
Government Hospital at Veraval, where she received
preliminary treatment, and was thereafter shifted to the
Government Hospital at Junagadh for further treatment.
According to the witness, the complainant remained
admitted at the latter hospital for four days. The witness
identified the accused before the Court.
In her cross-examination, she stated that her
daughter was engaged to a person residing at Bhojade
village. She further admitted that, at the relevant time,
Page 13 of 29
Uploaded by ROHAN SONI(HC02356) on Mon Oct 26 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Oct 27 02:15:29 IST 2026
R/CR.A/383/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/10/2026
(GJHC240523412016)
the maize crop in the field was approximately as high as
a person's head and that the water motor was situated on
one side of the field. She acknowledged that a person
moving within the maize field could not be seen from
outside. The witness categorically admitted that she had
not witnessed the incident herself and had identified the
accused in her police statement because they belonged
to the same village. She further admitted that she had
not stated in her police statement that she had heard her
daughter shouting and had proceeded towards the place
of occurrence. According to her deposition, when she
reached the spot, her daughter was unconscious.
PW-5 Osmanbhai Fathubhai, examined at
8.3
Exh.31, and PW-11 Rambhai Parbatbhai Barad, examined
at Exh.44, were examined as panch witnesses to the
panchnama produced at Exh.33, whereby an aluminium
bottle without a label, containing some liquid, was
allegedly recovered at the instance of accused No.1. The
Page 14 of 29
Uploaded by ROHAN SONI(HC02356) on Mon Oct 26 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Oct 27 02:15:29 IST 2026
R/CR.A/383/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/10/2026
(GJHC240523412016)
panchnama in that regard was drawn during the course
of investigation. However, both the witnesses did not
support the case of the prosecution and were declared
hostile. Despite their cross-examination by the learned
Additional Public Prosecutor, nothing material supporting
the prosecution case could be elicited from their
depositions.
PW-6 Nagesh Kanabhai, examined at Exh.33, is
8.4
the brother of the complainant and, according to the
prosecution, was present at the agricultural field at the
time of the incident. The witness deposed that he and his
mother were present in the field, while his sister had
gone to switch on the electric motor. He stated that his
sister informed him that the accused had given her
poison to drink and that she thereafter began shouting.
Upon hearing her cries, he and his mother rushed
towards her. He further stated that he had seen the
Page 15 of 29
Uploaded by ROHAN SONI(HC02356) on Mon Oct 26 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Oct 27 02:15:29 IST 2026
R/CR.A/383/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/10/2026
(GJHC240523412016)
accused at the scene of occurrence and that his sister
was vomiting.
In his cross-examination, however, the witness
stated that their house was situated on one side of the
agricultural field and that, at the time of the incident, he
and his mother were inside the house. He admitted that
the maize crop in the field was approximately as high as
a person's head and that it was not possible to see
whether anyone was standing inside the field. He further
stated that, upon hearing his sister shouting, he and his
mother went to see her. He categorically admitted that
he had not seen anyone administering poison to his
sister. Although he stated that his sister was conscious at
that time, he admitted that she had not informed him as
to who had given her the poison to drink.
PW-7 Dr. Kishorebhai Raghuvirdas Haryani,
8.5
examined at Exh.34, is the Medical Officer who was on
Page 16 of 29
Uploaded by ROHAN SONI(HC02356) on Mon Oct 26 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Oct 27 02:15:29 IST 2026
R/CR.A/383/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/10/2026
(GJHC240523412016)
duty at the Government Hospital, Veraval, on 11.04.2014.
He deposed that the complainant was brought to the
hospital at approximately 11:00 p.m. by her grandfather,
Kishanbhai Bhikhabhai, in a 108 ambulance. According
to the history recorded at the time of admission, two
persons, namely, Naranbhai Rudabhai Solanki and
Ramesh, had allegedly given the complainant some
substance to drink. The witness stated that the patient
was conscious, that no smell emanated from her breath,
and that her condition was normal. He further stated
that, in the absence of complications, she was expected
to recover within approximately fourteen days and that
she was referred to a higher medical centre for further
treatment. The witness produced the medical certificate
at Exh.35, the pre-hospital care record of the 108
ambulance service at Exh.36, and the referral document
at Exh.37.
Page 17 of 29
Uploaded by ROHAN SONI(HC02356) on Mon Oct 26 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Oct 27 02:15:29 IST 2026
R/CR.A/383/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/10/2026
(GJHC240523412016)
In his cross-examination by the learned
advocate for the accused, the witness reiterated that the
patient was conscious when she was brought to the
hospital. He further stated that the effect of any
medicinal or poisonous substance would depend upon the
quantity consumed. He also stated that, if a person had
consumed a substance which ordinarily produced a
characteristic smell, such smell might be detectable in
the person's breath. However, he specifically admitted
that no smell was emanating from the complainant's
breath.
PW-8 Dr. Shailesh Mohanbhai Jadhav, examined
8.6
at Exh.39, is the Medical Officer who was on duty at
Trimurti Hospital, Junagadh on 12.04. 2014, when the
complainant was brought there for treatment. He
deposed that the complainant was brought to the hospital
at approximately 3:15 a.m., along with the referral
document produced at Exh.40. At the time of her arrival,
Page 18 of 29
Uploaded by ROHAN SONI(HC02356) on Mon Oct 26 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Oct 27 02:15:29 IST 2026
R/CR.A/383/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/10/2026
(GJHC240523412016)
the complainant was conscious, froth was present at her
mouth, and her pupils were semi-dilated. She was
admitted as an indoor patient until 13 April 2014 and was
discharged at approximately 5:00 p.m. The witness
produced the medical certificate at Exh.41.
In his cross-examination by the learned
advocate for the accused, the witness stated that, as
recorded in the medical history, the complainant had
allegedly ingested poison administered by unknown
persons while working in the agricultural field at
approximately 12:00 noon on 11.04.2014. He admitted
that no smell was emanating from her breath, that she
was fully conscious, and that her condition was not
serious.
PW-9 Kadvabhai Ugabhai Khuntad, examined
8.7
at Exh.42 is the uncle of the complainant, whereas PW-10
Valiben Kadvabhai Khuntad, examined at Exh.43, is her
Page 19 of 29
Uploaded by ROHAN SONI(HC02356) on Mon Oct 26 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Oct 27 02:15:29 IST 2026
R/CR.A/383/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/10/2026
(GJHC240523412016)
aunt. PW-13 Babubhai Rambhai Parmar, examined at
Exh.46, PW-14 Dasabhai Karsanbhai Bamaniya, examined
at Exh.47, and PW-15 Karsanbhai Mesurbhai Khuntad,
examined at Exh.48, are residents of the same village as
the complainant. These witnesses deposed that they had
been informed by the complainant's mother that the
accused had made her daughter consume poison and that
she had consequently been taken to the hospital for
treatment. However, none of these witnesses supported
the prosecution case and all of them were declared
hostile. Nothing material adverse to the accused, or
otherwise lending support to the prosecution case, could
be elicited from their depositions.
PW-12 Dasabhai Ugabhai Khuntad, examined
8.8
at Exh.45, is also an uncle of the complainant. He
deposed that he was present in his agricultural field at
the time of the incident and that, upon hearing the
complainant shouting, he rushed towards the place from
Page 20 of 29
Uploaded by ROHAN SONI(HC02356) on Mon Oct 26 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Oct 27 02:15:29 IST 2026
R/CR.A/383/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/10/2026
(GJHC240523412016)
where the cries had emanated. On reaching there, he
found the complainant unconscious. He further stated
that he came to know from the family members of the
complainant that the accused had made her consume
poison.
In his cross-examination, the witness
categorically admitted that he had not personally
witnessed anyone administering poison to the
complainant. He further stated that, as the complainant
was unconscious when he reached the spot, he had no
conversation with her. He also admitted that he had not
gone to the hospital and was unaware of the events that
transpired thereafter.
PW-16 Sunilsinh Surubha Zala, examined at
8.9
Exh.49, is the PSO, Sutrapada Police Station who
registered the complaint, whereas PW-17 Ravirajsinh
Ashoksinh Jadeja, examined at Exh.52, is the
Page 21 of 29
Uploaded by ROHAN SONI(HC02356) on Mon Oct 26 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Oct 27 02:15:29 IST 2026
R/CR.A/383/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/10/2026
(GJHC240523412016)
Investigating Officer. The latter narrated the various
steps undertaken by him during the course of the
investigation.
In his cross-examination, the Investigating
Officer admitted that, in his statement, the complainant
had stated that she had been in a love affair with accused
No.2 for the preceding three years. He further admitted
that no muddamal article had been seized from the scene
of occurrence and that no muddamal article had been
sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory for examination
and analysis. He also stated that he had recorded the
statements of all the near relatives of the complainant.
The Investigating Officer further admitted that the
complainant's father was engaged in the illicit liquor
business and that several cases under the prohibition law
had been instituted against him. He also acknowledged
that an order had been passed by a competent authority
Page 22 of 29
Uploaded by ROHAN SONI(HC02356) on Mon Oct 26 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Oct 27 02:15:29 IST 2026
R/CR.A/383/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/10/2026
(GJHC240523412016)
restraining the complainant's father from entering
Gorakhmadhi village.
Upon an overall appreciation of the oral and
9.
documentary evidence on record, this Court is of the
considered view that the prosecution has failed to
establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable
doubt. The testimony of the complainant, though alleging
that accused No.1 had caught hold of her and accused
No.2 had administered a poisonous substance to her,
suffers from material omissions and improvements when
compared with her original complaint. The material
particulars concerning the alleged exhortation to elope,
the act of catching hold of her, the administration of
poison, and her alleged escape from the clutches of the
accused do not find mention in the complaint. The
evidence of the complainant's mother and brother does
not establish the actual administration of any poisonous
substance by either of the accused, as neither of them
Page 23 of 29
Uploaded by ROHAN SONI(HC02356) on Mon Oct 26 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Oct 27 02:15:29 IST 2026
R/CR.A/383/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/10/2026
(GJHC240523412016)
witnessed the alleged act. On the contrary, the brother of
the complainant categorically admitted that he had not
seen anyone administering poison to his sister and that
she had not informed him as to who had allegedly given
her the substance. Further, a material discrepancy
emerges from the evidence of the complainant's mother
and brother regarding the circumstances in which they
reached the place of occurrence and the condition of the
complainant at that time. While the mother stated that,
upon reaching the spot, she found the complainant
unconscious, the brother stated that the complainant was
conscious. Their respective testimonies, therefore, do not
provide a consistent account of the events immediately
following the alleged incident. Moreover, the mother
admitted that the maize crop was approximately as high
as a person's head and that a person moving within the
field could not be seen. In these circumstances, her
testimony does not establish that she had actually seen
Page 24 of 29
Uploaded by ROHAN SONI(HC02356) on Mon Oct 26 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Oct 27 02:15:29 IST 2026
R/CR.A/383/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/10/2026
(GJHC240523412016)
the accused at the place of occurrence or witnessed their
participation in the alleged offence.
9.1 The medical evidence, though indicative of the
complainant having received medical treatment, does not
independently establish that any poisonous substance
was administered to her by the accused. Significantly,
although an aluminium bottle containing some liquid was
allegedly seized by the Investigating Officer, the said
bottle was not forwarded to the Forensic Science
Laboratory for chemical analysis. Consequently, neither
the nature nor the composition of the substance allegedly
contained therein has been scientifically established.
Furthermore, the report of the FSL Mobile Investigation
Unit does not indicate the discovery of any suspicious
article or material evidence indicative of the commission
of the alleged offence in the vicinity of the place of
occurrence. There is also no evidence on record
establishing that the complainant had vomited at the
Page 25 of 29
Uploaded by ROHAN SONI(HC02356) on Mon Oct 26 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Oct 27 02:15:29 IST 2026
R/CR.A/383/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/10/2026
(GJHC240523412016)
place of occurrence, which could otherwise have
provided some corroborative material in support of the
prosecution version. These circumstances assume
significance when considered cumulatively with the
absence of any scientific examination of the seized bottle.
9.2 Another material circumstance requiring
consideration is the discrepancy concerning the identity
of the persons allegedly responsible for administering the
poisonous substance. The medical history recorded at the
Government Hospital at Junagadh refers to the
administration of poison by unknown persons, rather
than identifying the accused by name. This circumstance,
when considered alongside the material omissions in the
complaint and the inconsistencies in the testimony of the
complainant's mother and brother, further weakens the
prosecution case concerning the identity and
involvement of the accused. The remaining witnesses are
either hearsay witnesses or panch witnesses who have
Page 26 of 29
Uploaded by ROHAN SONI(HC02356) on Mon Oct 26 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Oct 27 02:15:29 IST 2026
R/CR.A/383/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/10/2026
(GJHC240523412016)
not supported the prosecution case. The Investigating
Officer has also admitted that no muddamal article was
sent for forensic examination and that several cases
under the prohibition law had been instituted against the
complainant's father. Though the latter circumstance
cannot, by itself, determine the merits of the prosecution
case, the evidence as a whole must be scrutinised with
due regard to the material deficiencies and
inconsistencies emerging on record.
The prosecution has, therefore, failed to
10.
establish the essential ingredients of the offences
punishable under Sections 328 and 114 of the Indian
Penal Code, particularly the administration of a
poisonous or harmful substance by the accused and their
participation in the commission of the alleged offence.
The deficiencies in the prosecution evidence cannot be
supplied by conjectures or presumptions, nor can the
accused be convicted merely on the basis of suspicion,
Page 27 of 29
Uploaded by ROHAN SONI(HC02356) on Mon Oct 26 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Oct 27 02:15:29 IST 2026
R/CR.A/383/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/10/2026
(GJHC240523412016)
however strong it may be. The learned Trial Court,
having considered the evidence on record and extended
the benefit of doubt to the accused, has arrived at a
conclusion which cannot be said to be perverse, illegal,
or contrary to the evidence on record. It is well settled
that, in an appeal against acquittal, interference is
warranted only where the findings recorded by the trial
Court suffer from a manifest illegality, perversity, or a
demonstrable misappreciation of the evidence. In the
present case, no such infirmity is discernible in the
impugned judgment. Accordingly, this Court finds no
cogent or compelling reason to interfere with the
judgment and order of acquittal passed by the learned
Trial Court.
11. Consequently, the appeal stands dismissed and
the impugned judgement and order of acquittal passed
th
by the learned 7 (Ad-hoc) Additional Sessions Judge,
Page 28 of 29
Uploaded by ROHAN SONI(HC02356) on Mon Oct 26 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Oct 27 02:15:29 IST 2026
R/CR.A/383/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/10/2026
(GJHC240523412016)
Veraval, District - Junagadh in Sessions Case No. 15 of
2014 on 24.11.2015, is hereby confirmed.
12. Bail bond stands cancelled. Record and
proceedings be sent back to the concerned Trial Court
forthwith.
Sd/-
(S. V. PINTO,J)
ROHAN SONI
Page 29 of 29
Uploaded by ROHAN SONI(HC02356) on Mon Oct 26 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Oct 27 02:15:29 IST 2026