STATE OF GUJARAT vs PRAVIN @ PAKO NATHALAL VORA
- Court
- Gujarat High Court
R/CR.A/94/2002 (GJHC240301792002) JUDGMENT DATED: 02/09/2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 94 of 2002
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.Y. KOGJE Sd/-
and
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE NISHA M. THAKORE Sd/-
================================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
✓
================================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
PRAVIN @ PAKO NATHALAL VORA & ORS.
================================================================
Appearance:
MS SHRUTI PATHAK, APP for the Appellant(s) No. 1
ABATED for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1
MR NR KODEKAR(5020) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 3
RULE SERVED for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 2
================================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.Y. KOGJE
and
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE NISHA M. THAKORE
Date : 02/09/2026
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.Y. KOGJE)
1. The present appeal is preferred by the appellant-State
under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against
judgment and order of acquittal dated 09.11.2001 passed by
Sessions Judge, Court No.1, Ahmedabad City Sessions Court in
Page 1 of 16
Uploaded by SHITOLE MANISH P.(HC00188) on Tue Sep 08 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 09 00:05:46 IST 2026
R/CR.A/94/2002 (GJHC240301792002) JUDGMENT DATED: 02/09/2026
Sessions Case No.247 of 2000. By the impugned judgment and
order, the Sessions Court acquitted the respondents-accused for
offence under sections 302, 324, 34 and 114 of the Indian Penal
Code and Section 135(1) of the Bombay Police Act.
1.1 Reportedly the appeal against accused No.1-Pravin @
Pako Nathalal Vora has abated and accused No.2-Pravin @ Paliyo
Fulabhai Parmar is absconding. However, with consent of the
learned advocates for the respective parties, the Court has taken-
up the matter for final disposal.
2. The case pertains to an incident where, on 29.01.2000
at 11;00 at night, original accused Nos.1 and 2, with common
intention to commit murder of deceased-Premsingh @ Pappu
Shivsevaksingh, caused injuries by inflicting blows with sword and
“dhariya”, which resulted in death of the deceased. It is the case of
prosecution that original accused No.3-Nilesh @ Niliyo
Ratnaprakash Divakar, who was having iron knuckle on his fingers,
gave fist blows on the left eye, chest and stomach of complainant-
Mukesh Vidhyaram Prajapati. On these facts, complaint was filed
and after investigation, police filed charge sheet against all
accused persons for offences under Sections 302, 324, 34 and 114
of the Indian Penal Code and Section 135(1) of the Bombay Police
Act.
Page 2 of 16
Uploaded by SHITOLE MANISH P.(HC00188) on Tue Sep 08 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 09 00:05:46 IST 2026
R/CR.A/94/2002 (GJHC240301792002) JUDGMENT DATED: 02/09/2026
3. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the appellant-
State submitted that it is a case where, complainant-PW No.4-
Mukesh Vidhyaram Prajapati, Exh.31 is himself an eyewitness, who
had received injuries in the incident. It is submitted that the
Sessions Court has completely discarded deposition of injured
eyewitness.
3.1 It is submitted that the Sessions Court has discarded
deposition of eyewitness-Guddusingh Kiledarsingh Pavar, PW No.6,
Exh.49. It is submitted that this eyewitness in his deposition, in no
uncertain terms, has narrated about the role played by each
accused in committing murder of the deceased.
3.2 It is submitted that similarly the Sessions Court has
also not believed version of panch witness qua scene of offence
only on the ground that they have neither disclosed the fact with
regard to blood stain at the scene of offence nor have disclosed that
the complainant, who received injuries, had shown the place of
incident. It is submitted that the Sessions Court in the panchnama
of scene of offence, it is clearly mentioned that the said place was
shown /identified by the complainant.
3.3 It is submitted that the trial Court has also failed to
appreciate the fact that in the present case, complainant-PW No.4-
Mukesh Vidhyaram Prajapati, Exh.31 is an injured eyewitness and
Page 3 of 16
Uploaded by SHITOLE MANISH P.(HC00188) on Tue Sep 08 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 09 00:05:46 IST 2026
R/CR.A/94/2002 (GJHC240301792002) JUDGMENT DATED: 02/09/2026
PW No.6- Guddusingh Kiledarsingh Pavar, Exh.49, who is also an
eye-witness, had narrated the details of the incident to PW No.9-
Shivsevaksingh Ramnathsingh, Exh.54. It is submitted that the
Sessions Court has also erred in holding that these eyewitnesses
have not disclosed the names of the accused persons while
narrating the details of the incident. It is submitted that the
Sessions Court has also erred in believing that the eyewitnesses
are fictitious and got-up as they are not residing in the nearby area
of the place of incident.
3.4 It is submitted that the incident had taken place
between 11;00 to 12;30 in night hours and therefore, it is quite
possible that there may not be any passersby at that time or that, if
there are any passersby, they might have avoided to be involved in
the incident. However, in the present case, in fact, PW No.6-
Guddusingh Kiledarsingh Pavar, Exh.49 is an independent
eyewitness, who has nothing to do with the deceased or accused
persons and has narrated the incident while he was passing
through the scene of offence.
3.5 It is submitted that the Sessions Court has also
discarded documentary evidence in the form of FIR-Exh.28, only on
the ground that in the FIR, names of the accused persons are not
disclosed.
Page 4 of 16
Uploaded by SHITOLE MANISH P.(HC00188) on Tue Sep 08 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 09 00:05:46 IST 2026
R/CR.A/94/2002 (GJHC240301792002) JUDGMENT DATED: 02/09/2026
3.6 It is submitted that though complainant-PW No.4-
Mukesh Vidhyaram Prajapati, Exh.31 was friend of deceased-
Premsingh, however, there are other eye-witnesses also, whose
evidence is also discarded by the Sessions Court.
3.7 It is submitted that looking to gravity and seriousness
of offence, evidence of single witness was sufficient to convict the
respondents-accused. In the instant case, the prosecution has
examined number of witnesses to prove the case, still, however, the
Sessions Court has not properly appreciated their evidence.
4. As against this, learned Advocate for respondent No.3
supported the impugned judgment and order and submitted that
after detailed discussion of oral as well as documentary evidence,
has not believed the case of prosecution by acquitting the
respondents-accused.
4.1 It is submitted that the evidence led by the prosecution
is not reliable and is rightly not considered by the Sessions Court.
It is submitted that the so called eyewitnesses are not residents of
the nearby area and their presence at the scene of offence cannot
be believed.
4.2 It is submitted that in the present case, as per the case
of prosecution, there are three to four persons who were present at
the scene of offence. However, intentionally, the prosecution has
Page 5 of 16
Uploaded by SHITOLE MANISH P.(HC00188) on Tue Sep 08 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 09 00:05:46 IST 2026
R/CR.A/94/2002 (GJHC240301792002) JUDGMENT DATED: 02/09/2026
not led evidence of those persons nor they were examined by the
police. In such circumstances, evidence led by the prosecution is
suspicious and under cloud.
4.3 It is submitted that there is contradiction in the
contents of panchnama of scene of offence and important
witnesses, viz. Nathusingh and Anupbhai are not examined at all.
It is submitted that though statement of Anupbhai was taken, he
was not examined as a witness. Similarly, witness Ramvilas Pandit
has also not been examined. It is submitted that important witness
like PSO has also not been examined.
4.4 It is submitted that there are major contradictions in
the depositions of complainant-PW No.4-Mukesh Vidhyaram
Prajapati, Exh.31 and eyewitness PW No.6- Guddusingh
Kiledarsingh Pavar, Exh.49, with regard to injuries sustained and
bloodstain spot, which is rightly appreciated by the Sessions Court.
Moreover, discovery panchnama has also not been proved by the
prosecution. It is submitted that in fact, there are no eyewitnesses
and all the so called witnesses are got-up one.
5. Having heard learned APP for the appellant-State and
having perused documents on record, it appears that the charge
was framed vide Exh.1, wherein it is indicated as under:-
“1. On 29-1-2000 at any time prior to 11 o'clock at
Page 6 of 16
Uploaded by SHITOLE MANISH P.(HC00188) on Tue Sep 08 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 09 00:05:46 IST 2026
R/CR.A/94/2002 (GJHC240301792002) JUDGMENT DATED: 02/09/2026
night, accused No.1 and 2 formed a common intention
to commit murder of Prem Singh alias Pappu
Shivsevaksing, and in pursuance of such common
intention, on 28-1-2000 at about 11 o'clock at night, at
Naroda Road, between Block No.36 and 25 of B Colony,
in the city of Ahmedabad, accused No.1 with the sword
in possession and accused No.2 with the dharia in
possession, inflicted injuries on different parts of the
body of the said Prem Singh alias Pappu Shivsevaksing,
which in the ordinary course of nature were sufficient
to cause death of a human being, and thereby caused
his death and committed murder, and thereby accused
No.1 and 2 have committed an offence punishable
under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code read with
Section 34 of the I.P.C. And accused No.3 has
committed an offence punishable under Section 302 of
the said Code read with Section 114 of the I.P.C.
2. Further, on the above mentioned date, time and
place and in the same transaction, accused No.3 with
the iron fait in possession caused injuries to
complainant Mukesh Vidharam Prajapati on his left eye,
on the chest and on the stomach voluntarily caused
hurt and by doing so, accused No.3 has committed an
offence punishable under Section 324 of the Indian
Penal Code. And in the said offence, accused No.1 and
2 by abetting the same have committed an offence
punishable under Section 324 of the I.P.C.”
6. To prove the case against the respondents-accused, the
prosecution relied upon following oral evidence:-
Page 7 of 16
Uploaded by SHITOLE MANISH P.(HC00188) on Tue Sep 08 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 09 00:05:46 IST 2026
R/CR.A/94/2002 (GJHC240301792002) JUDGMENT DATED: 02/09/2026
Sr.
No.
Name of the witness Exh.
No.
1 Deposition of PW No.1-Dr.Shilpaben Kanubhai
Yadav
18
2 Deposition of PW No.2-Virchandbhai Morarbhai,
Head Constable
21
3 Deposition of PW No.3-Dharmendrasinh Pravinsinh
Zala, Police Constable
27
4 Deposition of PW No.4-complainant-Mukesh
Vidhyaram Prajapati
31
5 Deposition of PW No.5-Lalubhai Hemubha
Chudasama
45
6 Deposition of PW No.6-Guddusingh Kiledarsingh
Pavar
49
7 Deposition of PW No.7-Dr.Parulben Rameshbhai
Vaghela
50
8 Deposition of PW No.8-Kamlesh Sardarsingh 52
9 Deposition of PW No.9-Shivsevaksingh
Ramnathsingh
54
10 Deposition of PW No.10-Talaji Pratapji Vaghela 59
11 Deposition of PW No.11-Dr.Jayeshbhai Anantrai
Shelat
60
6.1 The prosecution also relied upon mainly following
documentary evidence:-
Sr.
No.
Particular Exh.
No.
1 PM report 19
2 Report of the PSO, Saherkotda Police Station 25
3 FIR filed by Mukesh Vidhyaram 32
4 Inquest Panchnama of the death body 36
5 Panchnama of cloths of the deceased 37
6 Panchnama of recovery of pants of complainant-
Mukesh and deceased-Premsingh
38
Page 8 of 16
Uploaded by SHITOLE MANISH P.(HC00188) on Tue Sep 08 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 09 00:05:46 IST 2026
R/CR.A/94/2002 (GJHC240301792002) JUDGMENT DATED: 02/09/2026
7 Panchnama of body position and recovery of cloths of
accused
39
8 Outward entry of muddamal sent to FSL 40
9 FSL receipt 41
10 FSL receipt 42
11 Injury certificate of Mukesh Vidhyaram 43
12 Panchnama of discovery of weapons shown by accused 46
13 Panchnama of scene of offence 53
14 Injury certificate of accused Pravin 64
15 Xerox copy of Original “vardhi’ book 22
16 Xerox copy of Original “vardhi’ book 24
17 Original station diary 23
18 Original “vardhi’ book 28
19 Original “vardhi’ book 29
20 Medical papers of deceased Premsingh @ Pappu
Rathod
61
21 FIR 26
7. It appears to the Court that there is a discrepancy in
the charge where the accused no.1 has been attributed with the
sword and accused no.2 has been attributed with Dhariya, whereas
accused No.3 is attributed with Metal Knuckle (Phet). However,
from the evidence coming on record in the form of discovery
panchnama at Exh.46, accused No.1-Pako has been attributed with
Dhariya, whereas accused No.2–Paliyo has been attributed with
Sword. Similarly, the eye-witness Mukesh (PW-4, Exh.31), who is
the complainant, has attributed Paliyo (A-2) with sword and Pako
(A-1) with Dhariya and the eye witness Guddusinh has attributed
Pako(A-1) with Dhariya and Paliyo(A-2) with Sword. Therefore, in
Page 9 of 16
Uploaded by SHITOLE MANISH P.(HC00188) on Tue Sep 08 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 09 00:05:46 IST 2026
R/CR.A/94/2002 (GJHC240301792002) JUDGMENT DATED: 02/09/2026
the opinion of the Court, in the charge itself there is a defect and
therefore, the accused have been called upon to answer a Charge,
for which there is no evidence attributing the weapons as is
attributed in the Charge.
8. The Court has examined the evidence of the eye-
witness Mukesh Vidhyaram Prajapati at Exh.31 – PW4, who claims
to be the eye-witness. According to this witness, in the evidence in
chief, he has indicated that while he was along with the deceased
Premsinh, there was an assault wherein all the three accused were
involved of which two of the accused have assaulted the deceased.
Whereas the accused no.3 has used knuckle to cause injury to this
witness on his forehead. The witness has identified the weapons.
However, in the cross-examination it is coming-out that the witness
does not understand Gujarati and that he understands Hindi and
the FIR was given by him in Hindi language. The Court also
observes that the deposition has been recorded in the Gujarati.
However, there is no endorsement with regards to the fact that the
deposition in Gujarati has been explained in Hindi to this witness.
In the cross-examination, again this witness has deposed that he
had a longstanding relation with the deceased and in fact both of
them were co-accused in the offence under the Atrocity Act. The
deposition of the witness also indicates that the place of incident
appears to be thickly populated and that the incident was in a place
Page 10 of 16
Uploaded by SHITOLE MANISH P.(HC00188) on Tue Sep 08 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 09 00:05:46 IST 2026
R/CR.A/94/2002 (GJHC240301792002) JUDGMENT DATED: 02/09/2026
which was in full public view. Despite this, the prosecution
appears to have failed to examine any witness, who can be treated
as independent eye-witness. The Court also observes that there is
discrepancy in the places at which the assault has taken place, as a
result of which this witness could not be treated as a reliable
eyewitness.
9. This discrepancy is coming out when his version in deposition
is compared with the FIR given by the very witness. In the FIR it is
stated that upon the incident taking place, the witness ran towards
the chawli where the father of the deceased was residing to inform
him, whereas in cross-examination he deposes that he has not
made any such statement in the FIR. But in the evidence in chief,
he comes out with a version that he goes and informs the father of
the deceased. In the very deposition, he has deposed that the
version given in the FIR was that he had lost consciousness and
had fallen down. Therefore, whether this witness did actually
witness the incident is also questionable. In view of the aforesaid
reasons, and the contradictions being proved, the Court is also not
inclined to treat PW4 Mukesh Prajapati to be a truthful and
independent witness. The Sessions Court while discarding the
evidence of this witness has assigned sufficient reasons in paras –
17 and 18 of the judgment.
10. In this context, reference may also be made to the procedure
Page 11 of 16
Uploaded by SHITOLE MANISH P.(HC00188) on Tue Sep 08 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 09 00:05:46 IST 2026
R/CR.A/94/2002 (GJHC240301792002) JUDGMENT DATED: 02/09/2026
which has been prescribed under Rule 150(2) of the Criminal
Manual which provides that the deposition of every witness should
be read over to him and the Presiding Judge should note the fact of
having read over the deposition to the witness at the end of each
deposition thus recorded by him, and should also make an
endorsement that the witness admits the correctness thereof.
11. In the present case, the Court observes that the
evidence of complainant-Mukesh at Exh.31 has been recorded in
Gujarati without any such endorsement by the Court despite the
fact that the witness does not understand Gujarati and has not
been explained in Hindi. Whereas, the Court finds that in case of
evidence of PW No.6-Guddusinh, the endorsement is made by the
witness with regards to the deposition being made in Hindi,
explained to the witness and then recorded in Gujarati. This
therefore is a lacunae in the trial procedure.
12. The other aspect that requires consideration is also the
evidence of another eye-witness viz. Guddusinh Pavar at Exh.49
PW-6. The evidence of this witness has also been discarded by the
Sessions Court by assigning reasons in paras – 17 and 18 of its
judgment. Over and above this, the Court having perused the
evidence of this witness, there appears to be the discrepancy in the
location at which the actual assault has taken place. This witness
also does not get any support from the circumstantial evidence like
Page 12 of 16
Uploaded by SHITOLE MANISH P.(HC00188) on Tue Sep 08 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 09 00:05:46 IST 2026
R/CR.A/94/2002 (GJHC240301792002) JUDGMENT DATED: 02/09/2026
the scene of offence, panchnama, which describes the exact
location of assault. In para-3 of his deposition, this witness has
deposed that after the assault when he went to call Shivsevaksinh
from Gafur Chali, at that time, he came across Shivsevaksinh,
Mukesh Prajapati, Ramdas and Banvari near the gate which
apparently is away from the place where the assault took place.
The fact that this witness deposes that Mukesh (PW-4) was found
along with Shivsevaksinh near the Gafur Chali gate completely
debunks the theory of the prosecution regarding the Mukesh being
the eye-witness or Guddusinh being the eye-witness. In fact, if
eyewitness Mukesh has not mentioned presence of Guddusinh at all
in his version, that also creates a doubt about Guddusinh (PW-6)
being an eyewitness.
13. Though it is argued that witness Mukesh is an injured
witness and due weightage is required to be attributed to this
witness, it is the case of the prosecution that Mukesh was inflicted
with injury with metal knuckles on his forehead, the discovery
panchnama at Exh.46 attributes the discovery of the metal
knuckles to accused no.3 Nilesh @ Nilyo. However, the FSL report
with regards to this weapon does not indicate finding of any blood
on the weapon. Exh.42 is the serological report where Item N is
the metal knuckle of which no traces of blood has been found. In
that view of the matter, even the assault on the injured eye-witness
Page 13 of 16
Uploaded by SHITOLE MANISH P.(HC00188) on Tue Sep 08 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 09 00:05:46 IST 2026
R/CR.A/94/2002 (GJHC240301792002) JUDGMENT DATED: 02/09/2026
does not get any substantiation by the circumstantial evidence of
discovery panchnama and the serological report. The Court may
also take into consideration the injuries sustained by the deceased
where the cause of death is attributed to the multiple cut and stab
injuries on head and face. According to the Medical Officer, who
performed the Postmortem report, the weapons like knife and
sword are capable of inflicting the injuries which are mentioned in
the postmortem note at Exh.19. However, again referring to the
serological report at Exh.42 the sword having been attributed with
Item N does not find traces of blood and therefore, the inflicting of
injury by the sword is also not been established.
14. The Court has examined the reasons assigned by the
Sessions court in not accepting the versions of the eye-witnesses
and has held that the inter se contradiction in the version of the
witnesses creates doubt on the theory of the prosecution. The
second ground for discarding their evidence is that the entire case
of the prosecution is based on the three eye-witnesses and all of
whom being the interested eyewitnesses. PW No.4-Mukesh being a
close friend, PW No.6- Guddusinh also being a close friend and PW
No.9-Shivsevaksingh being the father of the deceased, all the three
have been treated to be interested witnesses.
15. The Court has also discarded their evidence even on
the ground of the discrepancies in their version regarding the
Page 14 of 16
Uploaded by SHITOLE MANISH P.(HC00188) on Tue Sep 08 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 09 00:05:46 IST 2026
R/CR.A/94/2002 (GJHC240301792002) JUDGMENT DATED: 02/09/2026
actual place of assault. As in the version coming out from each of
these witnesses, there is a change in the place where the assault
has taken place. From the panchnama of scene of offence, the
assault has taken place in three stages at three different places as
it is the theory of the prosecution that the deceased was chased
and was assaulted at three different places. However, the version
of each of these witness does not indicate about the three places
where the assault has taken place.
16. In view of the aforesaid evidence coming on record,
the Court is of the view that the prosecution has failed to establish
the case against the respondent-accused beyond reasonable doubt.
The Court may also draw strength from the decision of the Apex
Court in case of Rajesh Prasad Vs. State of Bihar & Anr.
reported in (2022) 3 SCC 471 , wherein the Apex Court has
examined the case law with regard to the power of the High Court
to overturned the decision of the Sessions Court where an another
view is possible. Examining the case including that of Chandrappa
& Ors. vs. State of Karnataka reported in ( 2007) 4 SCC 415 ,
the Apex Court has culled out the general principles regarding the
powers of the Appellate Court while dealing with the appeal
against the order of acquittal. The Apex Court has held that the
appellate court has full power to review, re-appreciate and
reconsider the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is
Page 15 of 16
Uploaded by SHITOLE MANISH P.(HC00188) on Tue Sep 08 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 09 00:05:46 IST 2026
R/CR.A/94/2002 (GJHC240301792002) JUDGMENT DATED: 02/09/2026
founded. However, the appellate court has to keep in mind that in
case of an acquittal, there is a double presumption in favour of the
accused. Firstly, the presumption of innocence is available to him
under the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence, and
thereafter, upon securing of acquittal, the presumption is further
reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened, and therefore, whenever
there are two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of
the evidence on record, ordinarily, the Apex Court would not
disturb the findings of acquittal recorded by the Trial court.
17. The Court has also perused judgment and order of the
Sessions Court and finds that cogent and convincing reasons are
assigned by the Sessions Court while acquitting the respondents-
accused.
18. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the Court finds no
reason to interfere with the impugned judgment and order of
acquittal. The appeal is therefore dismissed. Bail bond stands
discharged. Records and Proceedings be sent back to the
concerned Sessions Court.
Sd/-
(A.Y. KOGJE, J)
Sd/-
(NISHA M. THAKORE,J)
SHITOLE
Page 16 of 16
Uploaded by SHITOLE MANISH P.(HC00188) on Tue Sep 08 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 09 00:05:46 IST 2026