STATE OF GUJARAT vs GOVINDBHAI MANIBHAI VAGHRI

R/CR.A/1474/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/10/2026
(GJHC240373532003)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1474 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
GOVINDBHAI MANIBHAI VAGHRI
=============================================
Appearance:
MR MANAN MAHETA, ASSISTANT PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the Appellant(s)
No. 1
MR HIMANSHU K PATEL(3183) 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 appeal under Section 378 of the Criminal Procedure
Code, 1973 is against the order of acquittal dated 30.06.2003
passed by the Additional Sessions Judge and Presiding Officer,
Fast Track Court, Kheda at Nadiad in Sessions Case No.272 of
1999.
Page 1 of 7
Uploaded by RIYA VISHWAKARMA(HC02365) on Sat Oct 17 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 17 17:12:13 IST 2026

R/CR.A/1474/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/10/2026
(GJHC240373532003)
[2] The respondent was facing trial under Section 302 of the
Indian Penal Code on the charge that he had committed the
murder of his wife.
[3] As per the charge, on 04.07.1996, at about 6:00 in the
evening, the complainant, the brother-in-law of the deceased,
was informed that the deceased had questioned her husband,
when he had gone out to the market, as to why he had not
brought biscuits for children, and getting excited, the accused
gave kick and fist blows on the chest and abdomen of the
deceased, and she sustained injuries on the left cheek above the
eyes.
[4] The learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. Manan
Maheta, has referred to the charge as well as the complaint,
submitting thereby that the injuries caused by the respondent
had been the cause of death.
[5] As per the learned APP, the NC complaint was filed,
wherein the deceased herself had given the complaint to the
Executive Magistrate informing about the acts of the husband
and learned Trial Court Judge has not appreciated, in right
perspective, the evidence of the complainant, Jayantibhai
Desaibhai, who had been examined as Exhibit 12.
[6] Learned APP stated that the evidence of the deceased
Page 2 of 7
Uploaded by RIYA VISHWAKARMA(HC02365) on Sat Oct 17 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 17 17:12:13 IST 2026

R/CR.A/1474/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/10/2026
(GJHC240373532003)
before the Executive Magistrate is required to be considered as
a dying declaration, as well as the statement of deceased before
the complainant itself was required to be considered as a dying
declaration, which were a sufficient and reliable evidence for
conviction.
[7] We have perused the testimony of the witnesses through
which the learned APP has taken us. The NC complaint
recorded before the Magistrate had been given by the deceased
herself, making a reference of the incident dated 04.07.1996,
and the fact of questioning her husband as to why he had not
brought biscuits for the children had ended in a verbal quarrel.
The deceased, as a complainant, had informed that her husband
had given her kick and fist blows, and while he was giving a
blow on the head, she dodged it and her face struck with the
wall, resulting in bruises on the left side.
[8] The complaint is dated 06.07.1996, wherein the brother-
in-law of the deceased has reiterated the same facts.
[9] The post-mortem report had not disclosed the cause of
death, which was kept pending till the report of HP examination
of the viscera was received.
[10] The internal injury, as noticed by way of the post-mortem
report in para 19, records the injury, as under:-
“ Scalp hematoma inner surface of posterior aspect
Page 3 of 7
Uploaded by RIYA VISHWAKARMA(HC02365) on Sat Oct 17 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 17 17:12:13 IST 2026

R/CR.A/1474/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/10/2026
(GJHC240373532003)
of mid Illegible plain at occipital parital region 5 CM
X 5 CM.
Subdural blood clots in Lt. Sub frontal region &
tempass region. Intraventricular haemmorrhage in
the posterior Illegible of the (Lt) ventical.
Oedemsof brain stream.”
[11] The learned Sessions Judge, while acquitting the accused,
has recorded findings regarding the injury. The viscera report
could not be received since the articles which were sent for
examination was found in decomposed position and, therefore,
there could not be any final assessment regarding the cause of
death.
[12] However, taking into consideration the facts as per the
complaint and the statement of the deceased in the form of an
NC complaint, the deceased had complained about the fisticuffs
which she had sustained at the hands of the husband, and while
the husband was about to slap her, she turned her face and the
face got struck with the wall.
[13] In absence of the final conclusion regarding the cause of
death, and further having taken into consideration the facts of
the case and the evidence which had come on record during the
trial, the cause of death has no direct connection with the
assault alleged, the deceased had personally made the
compliant before the Executive Magistrate as an NC complaint.
The correlation of injury and the cause for the death does not
stand to be proved. We do not find any reason to interfere with
Page 4 of 7
Uploaded by RIYA VISHWAKARMA(HC02365) on Sat Oct 17 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 17 17:12:13 IST 2026

R/CR.A/1474/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/10/2026
(GJHC240373532003)
the conclusion reached by the Trial Court, as we do not find any
perversity in the judgment.
[14] 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.
(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,
Page 5 of 7
Uploaded by RIYA VISHWAKARMA(HC02365) on Sat Oct 17 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 17 17:12:13 IST 2026

R/CR.A/1474/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/10/2026
(GJHC240373532003)
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.”
[15] 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
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.”
[16] In view of the observations made hereinabove, we do not
find any reason to dislodge the findings of the learned Trial
Page 6 of 7
Uploaded by RIYA VISHWAKARMA(HC02365) on Sat Oct 17 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 17 17:12:13 IST 2026

R/CR.A/1474/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/10/2026
(GJHC240373532003)
Court Judge. In the result, the present Criminal Appeal stands
dismissed. Record and Proceeding, if any, be sent back to the
concerned Trial Court forthwith.
(GITA GOPI,J)
(J. L. ODEDRA, J)
RIYA
Page 7 of 7
Uploaded by RIYA VISHWAKARMA(HC02365) on Sat Oct 17 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 17 17:12:13 IST 2026