Gujarat High Court Acquits Three Men Citing Inconsistent Witnesses, Medical Records and Flawed Investigation

A bench of Honourable Ms. Justice Gita Gopi heard appeals arising from convictions in Sessions Case No.77 of 1991 where three accused were convicted for offences including culpable homicide not amounting to murder (Section 304 Part II IPC), criminal conspiracy (Section 120B IPC) and offences under the Bombay Police Act; the State filed a separate appeal seeking enhancement of sentence.

The High Court allowed the accuseds' appeal against conviction and dismissed the State's appeal for enhancement, set aside the trial court's judgment of conviction and sentence and acquitted the appellants. The Court found pervasive inconsistencies in ocular and medical evidence, non-support by independent eyewitnesses, defects in the investigation and doubts about the provenance and recording of the complainant's hospital statement. The Court noted that the prosecution failed to establish guilt "beyond all reasonable doubt" and observed that the trial court "had failed to discern, the true color of all the witnesses examined in the matter." The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "The witnesses examined by the prosecution in the form of relative witnesses have shown their interest in the conviction of the accused. The original eye witnesses have not uttered a word against the accused. ... The weapons alleged to be involved in the matter had not been proved, the recovery of those weapons at the instance of the accused was not proved by the Panchas as well as the I.O. The prosecution had failed to prove the case beyond all reasonable doubt."

Background

The dispute arose from an incident on 11 July 1989 in which Karsan Ranmal Aher sustained multiple injuries and died on 17 July 1989. The prosecution alleged that the three accused, in furtherance of common intention, assaulted the deceased with sticks and a hoe, causing fatal injuries; they were convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Jamnagar on 29 April 2003 and sentenced to terms of imprisonment and fines. The appellants challenged conviction (Criminal Appeal No. 649 of 2003) while the State sought enhancement of punishment (Criminal Appeal No. 1484 of 2003).

At trial the prosecution relied on a complaint recorded at a Primary Health Centre, medical evidence from treating and post-mortem doctors, recovery and chemical analysis reports showing blood on weapons and testimony of interested witnesses (son, nephew and brother of the deceased). Several independent witnesses who were travelling in a tractor behind the deceased's motorcycle turned hostile and did not support the prosecution version. Medical records produced from Irwin Hospital recorded the injuries as "accidental" on some treatment notes; post-mortem opined multiple antemortem injuries and gangrene with cardio-respiratory failure as the cause of death. The investigating officer conducted the initial inquiry, recorded the complaint, drew panchnamas and later filed the charge-sheet; the Court highlighted omissions such as absence of a dying declaration recorded before an Executive Magistrate, lack of panchnama corroboration by panchas, delays in medical examinations of one accused, and failure to explain why the injured's complaint bore a thumb impression rather than a signature.

The Court applied settled criminal jurisprudence—quoting that "an accused is presumed to be innocent until his guilt is proved beyond reasonable doubt"—and compared inconsistencies across ocular testimony, medical reports and investigative steps. Finding that independent eyewitnesses did not implicate the accused, that interested witnesses' testimony was not corroborated, and that weapon recoveries and their provenance were not satisfactorily established, the Court concluded that prosecution did not prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt. Consequently the High Court allowed the appellants' appeal, acquitted them of all charges, discharged bail bonds and dismissed the State's enhancement appeal; it directed that records be returned to the trial court.

Case Details: Case No.: R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 649 of 2003 (with R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1484 of 2003) NeutralCitation: 2026:GUJHC:19478 Case Title: Hardas Dhana & Ors. Versus State of Gujarat Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Mr M.M. Tirmizi (Advocate for Appellants Nos.1-3) For the Respondent(s): Ms Jyoti Bhatt, APP (for the State)