High Court Upholds Acquittal in Night-time Assault, Rules Prosecution Failed to Prove Guilt Beyond Reasonable Doubt

A division bench of Justice Sangeeta K. Vishen and Justice Vimal K. Vyas heard the State of Gujarat’s appeal against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 31.01.2003 rendered by the Additional Sessions Judge, Amreli in Sessions Case No.118 of 2000. The appeal contested the acquittal of seven accused on charges under Sections 302, 324, 504, 147, 148 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code arising out of an alleged violent incident on 03.06.2000.

The High Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the trial court’s acquittal, holding that the prosecution did not prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt. The Court noted material contradictions in the testimony of the star witnesses, infirmities in the recovery evidence and a lack of forensic corroboration. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: “26. It may be noted that the possibility of two views in a criminal case is not an extraordinary phenomenon. The two-views theory has been judicially recognized by the Courts and it comes into play when the appreciation of evidence results into two equally plausible views. However, the controversy is to be resolved in favour of the accused. For, the very existence of an equally plausible view in favour of innocence of the accused is in itself a reasonable doubt in the case of the prosecution. Moreover, it reinforces the presumption of innocence. And therefore, when two views are possible, following the one in favour of innocence of the accused is the safest course of action….” The Court further recorded that “the prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt” and that the trial court’s findings “do not suffer from any perversity or illegality.”

Background The prosecution case arose from a nighttime altercation over collection of firewood in a village on 03.06.2000. The complainant Popatbhai Gobarbhai (PW-1) alleged that several accused attacked him, his uncle Kalubhai Manjibhai (injured, PW-8) and his cousin Naranbhai Savjibhai (who later died). The complaint claimed specific assaults with an axe, spear and sword and alleged that others pelted stones; the injured were taken to hospital and the deceased succumbed to injuries. Police registered I-CR No.37 of 2000 and produced panchnamas, inquest and medical records, blood sample panchnama and FSL reports; nineteen documents and ten witnesses were adduced at trial.

The trial court acquitted the accused on 31.01.2003, granting benefit of doubt. On appeal, the State relied on the testimony of the complainant, injured and an eye-witness (PW-2), and on recovery panchnamas and FSL reports. The High Court reappreciated evidence in light of settled authority governing appeals against acquittal (including M.S. Narayana Menon, Chandrappa, State of Goa v. Sanjay Thakran and Hemareddy), observing that an appellate court may reassess evidence but should not disturb an acquittal unless the lower court’s conclusion was perverse or vitiated by manifest illegality.

On review, the High Court found serious contradictions: star witnesses gave inconsistent accounts about the presence of torches and visibility at the scene, PW-8 and PW-2 admitted inability to identify assailants in darkness, and cross-examination suggested the witnesses had conferred about versions to be presented to police. Panch witnesses to recovery turned hostile, and the FSL/serological report did not detect blood on the seized weapons. The Court concluded that while the incident occurred, it did not unfold as per the prosecution’s version and that two reasonable views existed; therefore the presumption of innocence weighed in favour of the accused. The appeal was dismissed and records were remitted to the trial court. No interim directions or further relief were granted.

Case Details: Case No.: R/CR.A/563/2003 (R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 563 of 2003) Case Title: State of Gujarat Versus Bhurabhai Dharamshibhai Surela & Ors. Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Ms Jyoti Bhatt, APP for the Appellant No.1 For the Respondent(s): HCLS Committee (4998); Yagneshkumar S. Joshi (Advocate)