Fatal inconsistencies between ocular and medical evidence and unexplained jurisdictional lapses necessitate the acquittal of the accused.

The complainant, Rahimbhai Savdibhai, alleged that he sold a buffalo to Accused No. 1 for ₹9,751/-, but the payment was never made.

On the day of the incident, the complainant and his son visited the accused's house to demand payment. An altercation ensued where Accused No. 1 allegedly assaulted the son, and Accused No. 2 allegedly struck the complainant’s head with the reverse side of an axe, causing unconsciousness and subsequent hospitalization at Kheralu and Mehsana.

The Trial Court convicted the respondents under IPC Sections 324, 323, 506(2), and 114, and Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act.

However, the Appellate Court set aside this conviction and acquitted the accused on 27.01.2012. The State of Gujarat preferred this appeal against the acquittal.

1. Whether the learned Appellate Court committed any error while re-appreciating the evidence recorded by the Trial Court.

2. Whether the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the Appellate Court is vitiated by perversity or illegality.

The court applied Sections 323 (voluntarily causing hurt), 324 (voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons), and 506(2) (criminal intimidation) of the Indian Penal Code, and Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act.

Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka (2007) and Rajesh Prasad v. State of Bihar (2022), which establish that an appellate court should not disturb an acquittal if two reasonable views are possible, given the "double presumption of innocence" in favor of the accused.

It further cited Ramesh v. State of Karnataka (2024) regarding the high threshold of "weighty grounds" required to discard a Trial Court's reasoning.

The High Court found the prosecution's case riddled with material contradictions and procedural lapses. First, the ocular testimony of the complainant (PW-1) and his son (PW-2) regarding the medical condition was inconsistent; while they claimed the complainant was unconscious for 3-8 days, the medical officer (PW-6) testified that the complainant was conscious upon arrival.

Second, medical evidence directly contradicted the weapon’s use, as the doctor stated the injury was not possible with the "reverse side of an axe" as alleged.

Third, the prosecution failed to produce any medical records or witnesses from the Mehsana Civil Hospital where the complainant was allegedly admitted as an indoor patient.

Fourth, the Investigating Officer failed to conduct a Test Identification Parade despite PW-2 admitting he did not previously know the accused.

Finally, the IO failed to record statements from independent witnesses at the scene (Village Limbdi), relying solely on interested witnesses.

The High Court confirmed the judgment of acquittal, dismissed the State's appeal, and cancelled the bail bonds.