HCMONTHLY CASE LAW ARCHIVE

Gujarat High Court Judgments in February 2026: Case Law Digest

Read 77 LawLens analyses of Gujarat High Court judgments published in February 2026, covering key rulings, legal principles and case law.

← BACK TO GUJARAT COURT REPORT

PERMANENT MONTHLY EDITIONS

Browse by month

AUTOMATICALLY UPDATED

February 2026 Judgments

77 ARTICLES · NEWEST FIRST
### Mere Insults Without Caste-Based Intent Do Not Constitute Offences Under the Atrocity Act The High Court of Gujarat affirmed an acquittal, ruling that verbal insults or intimidations do not amount to an offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act unless specifically targeted at a victim's caste identity. The Court emphasized that in the absence of independent witnesses and clear evidence of caste-based intent, the prosecution fails to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt.. State of Gujarat v. Lalabhai Matambhai Bharwad & Anr. [R/Criminal Appeal No. 1353 of 2008]. Gujarat High Court. LawLens

Gujarat High Court·

### Mere Insults Without Caste-Based Intent Do Not Constitute Offences Under the Atrocity Act The High Court of Gujarat affirmed an acquittal, ruling that verbal insults or intimidations do not amount to an offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act unless specifically targeted at a victim's caste identity. The Court emphasized that in the absence of independent witnesses and clear evidence of caste-based intent, the prosecution fails to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt.

The State of Gujarat preferred this appeal against the acquittal order dated 01.02.2008 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad

2 MIN READ

### Direct Ocular and Forensic Evidence Establishing Common Intention to Commit Homicidal Murder Case Brief: *Parmar Chhaganbhai Bhojabhai & Anr. v. State of Gujarat* Court: High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ilesh J. Vora and Hon’ble Mr. Justice R. T. Vachhani Decision Date: 24/02/2026 (As per text) Citation: R/Criminal Appeal No. 1515 of 2013 with 1315 of 2013 --- #### 1. Core Legal Issue Whether the evidence involving interested witnesses, corroborated by independent testimony of a "chase," recovery of weapons, and FSL reports, is sufficient to sustain a conviction for murder under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC. #### 2. Brief Facts On May 24, 2011, following a trivial dispute over water splashing, Accused Nos. 1 and 2 (armed with swords) attacked Sureshbhai (the deceased). Accused No. 3 (Gangaben) allegedly instigated the attack and assaulted the complainant (the deceased's wife). The deceased attempted to flee but was chased and further assaulted near a neighbor’s house. He succumbed to multiple penetrating and incised wounds at the hospital. The Trial Court convicted Accused Nos. 1 and 2 under Section 302/34 IPC but acquitted Accused No. 3 of the murder charge due to lack of shared common intention. Both the Accused (against conviction) and the State (against the acquittal of Accused No. 3) appealed. #### 3. Key Evidence Evaluated * Ocular Account: PW-2 (Wife/Complainant) provided a detailed account of the assault. The Court held that minor variations between her FIR and testimony were natural results of trauma. * Independent Corroboration: PW-5 (Neighbor) testified to seeing the accused chasing the deceased with blood-stained swords. This "chase" provided a crucial link in the chain of events. * Medical Evidence: Post-mortem (Exh-43) proved injuries to vital parts (chest, lung cavity) were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. * Scientific Evidence (FSL): Recovery of swords under Section 27 of the Evidence Act was validated by FSL reports confirming the deceased’s blood group on the weapons and the clothes of the accused. * Section 313 Cr.P.C.: The accused failed to explain the presence of blood on their clothes or their presence at the scene in their statements. #### 4. Court’s Reasoning & Principles 1. Sifting the Grain from the Chaff: Citing *Goverdhan v. State of Chhattisgarh*, the Court held that minor inconsistencies do not warrant the rejection of a witness's testimony if the core narrative is reliable. 2. Section 27 Evidence Act: Even if panch witnesses turn hostile, recovery is admissible if supported by the Investigating Officer’s testimony and subsequent FSL confirmation. 3. Section 34 IPC (Common Intention): The Court upheld the acquittal of Accused No. 3, noting that while she was present and involved in a scuffle, there was no evidence she shared the specific intent to kill or participated in the lethal sword attack. 4. Double Presumption of Innocence: In the State's appeal against acquittal, the Court reaffirmed that if the Trial Court's view is "possible," the Appellate Court should not interfere unless the findings are perverse. #### 5. Final Order * Criminal Appeal No. 1515/2013 (Accused Appeal): Dismissed. Conviction and life imprisonment of Accused Nos. 1 and 2 confirmed. * Criminal Appeal No. 1315/2013 (State Appeal): Dismissed. Acquittal of Accused No. 3 upheld.. Parmar Chhaganbhai Bhojabhai & Anr. v. State of Gujarat R/Criminal Appeal Nos. 1515 of 2013 and 1315 of 2013. Gujarat High Court. LawLens

Gujarat High Court·

### Direct Ocular and Forensic Evidence Establishing Common Intention to Commit Homicidal Murder Case Brief: *Parmar Chhaganbhai Bhojabhai & Anr. v. State of Gujarat* Court: High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ilesh J. Vora and Hon’ble Mr. Justice R. T. Vachhani Decision Date: 24/02/2026 (As per text) Citation: R/Criminal Appeal No. 1515 of 2013 with 1315 of 2013 --- #### 1. Core Legal Issue Whether the evidence involving interested witnesses, corroborated by independent testimony of a "chase," recovery of weapons, and FSL reports, is sufficient to sustain a conviction for murder under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC. #### 2. Brief Facts On May 24, 2011, following a trivial dispute over water splashing, Accused Nos. 1 and 2 (armed with swords) attacked Sureshbhai (the deceased). Accused No. 3 (Gangaben) allegedly instigated the attack and assaulted the complainant (the deceased's wife). The deceased attempted to flee but was chased and further assaulted near a neighbor’s house. He succumbed to multiple penetrating and incised wounds at the hospital. The Trial Court convicted Accused Nos. 1 and 2 under Section 302/34 IPC but acquitted Accused No. 3 of the murder charge due to lack of shared common intention. Both the Accused (against conviction) and the State (against the acquittal of Accused No. 3) appealed. #### 3. Key Evidence Evaluated * Ocular Account: PW-2 (Wife/Complainant) provided a detailed account of the assault. The Court held that minor variations between her FIR and testimony were natural results of trauma. * Independent Corroboration: PW-5 (Neighbor) testified to seeing the accused chasing the deceased with blood-stained swords. This "chase" provided a crucial link in the chain of events. * Medical Evidence: Post-mortem (Exh-43) proved injuries to vital parts (chest, lung cavity) were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. * Scientific Evidence (FSL): Recovery of swords under Section 27 of the Evidence Act was validated by FSL reports confirming the deceased’s blood group on the weapons and the clothes of the accused. * Section 313 Cr.P.C.: The accused failed to explain the presence of blood on their clothes or their presence at the scene in their statements. #### 4. Court’s Reasoning & Principles 1. Sifting the Grain from the Chaff: Citing *Goverdhan v. State of Chhattisgarh*, the Court held that minor inconsistencies do not warrant the rejection of a witness's testimony if the core narrative is reliable. 2. Section 27 Evidence Act: Even if panch witnesses turn hostile, recovery is admissible if supported by the Investigating Officer’s testimony and subsequent FSL confirmation. 3. Section 34 IPC (Common Intention): The Court upheld the acquittal of Accused No. 3, noting that while she was present and involved in a scuffle, there was no evidence she shared the specific intent to kill or participated in the lethal sword attack. 4. Double Presumption of Innocence: In the State's appeal against acquittal, the Court reaffirmed that if the Trial Court's view is "possible," the Appellate Court should not interfere unless the findings are perverse. #### 5. Final Order * Criminal Appeal No. 1515/2013 (Accused Appeal): Dismissed. Conviction and life imprisonment of Accused Nos. 1 and 2 confirmed. * Criminal Appeal No. 1315/2013 (State Appeal): Dismissed. Acquittal of Accused No. 3 upheld.

On May 24, 2011, a dispute arose between the complainant (Ashaben) and Accused No. 3 (Gangaben) over a trivial water-splashing incident involving a child from the previous day.

3 MIN READ

### Acquittal in Custodial Torture Case Due to Lack of Medical Corroboration and Failure to Complain Before Magistrate Summary: The Gujarat High Court set aside the conviction of a police officer for custodial torture and grievous hurt under Sections 331, 348, 352, and 365 IPC. The Court observed that the complainant failed to prove he was in police custody on the alleged dates of torture and noted the absence of medical evidence corroborating the specific injuries described. Crucially, the Court held that the complainant’s failure to report the alleged ill-treatment to the Magistrate during his initial production in a related Arms Act case, combined with an unexplained delay in filing a private complaint, created reasonable doubt, vitiating the prosecution's case.. Shabbirhusein Shekhadam Khandvawala & Ors. v. State of Gujarat & State of Gujarat v. Shabbirhusein Shekhadam Khandvawala & Ors. [Criminal Appeal Nos. 1195 of 2003 and 1509 of 2003]. Gujarat High Court. LawLens

Gujarat High Court·

### Acquittal in Custodial Torture Case Due to Lack of Medical Corroboration and Failure to Complain Before Magistrate Summary: The Gujarat High Court set aside the conviction of a police officer for custodial torture and grievous hurt under Sections 331, 348, 352, and 365 IPC. The Court observed that the complainant failed to prove he was in police custody on the alleged dates of torture and noted the absence of medical evidence corroborating the specific injuries described. Crucially, the Court held that the complainant’s failure to report the alleged ill-treatment to the Magistrate during his initial production in a related Arms Act case, combined with an unexplained delay in filing a private complaint, created reasonable doubt, vitiating the prosecution's case.

The complainant, Merag Haja, alleged that on 07.10.1976, police officers (including the appellants) searched his house for illegal weapons but found nothing, drawing a "NIL Panchnama".

3 MIN READ