STATE OF GUJARAT v. DALSINGBHAI DHANABHAI BARIYA

R/CR.A/435/2001 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/01/2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 435 of 2001 With R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 527 of 2001

FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ILESH J. VORA

and

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. T. VACHHANI

========================================= Approved for Reporting Yes No ========================================= STATE OF GUJARAT Versus DALSINGBHAI DHANABHAI BARIYA & ORS.

========================================= Appearance:

MR J K SHAH, APP for the Appellant(s) No. 1 MR EKANT G AHUJA(5323) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 2,3 MR.DARSHAN A. DAVE(7921) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1 ========================================= CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ILESH J. VORA and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. T. VACHHANI

Date : 15/01/2026

ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. T. VACHHANI)

1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatis7ed with the judgment and order of acquittal dated 05.03.2001 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Panchmahal Camp - Dahod in the interconnected cross-cases arising from Limkheda Police St ation C.R. No. 195/94 and C.R. No. 196/94, wherein the complai nant in one case is the accused in the other, the appellant-State has preferred the present consolidated appeals under Section 3 78 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“the Code” for short). In the case arising from C.R. No. 195/94, the respondents-accus ed were Page 1 of 15 R/CR.A/435/2001 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/01/2026 acquitted of the oFences punishable under Sections 32 6, 323, 504, 114 of the Indian Penal Code. In the case arising from C.R. No.

196/94, the respondents-accused were similarly acquitt ed of the oFences punishable under Sections 324, 323, 504, 114 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(1)(10) of the Schedule d Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. Given the cross-case nature of these matters arising from the same incid ent, they are being disposed of by this common judgment to ensure a uni7ed and comprehensive adjudication.

2. The brief facts leading to the 7ling of the present appeals, are as under:

2.1. The events come from two connected complaints 7led at Limkheda Police Station, showing opposing claims of v iolence over a land dispute involving planting of thorny fence. In the 7rst complaint (C.R. No. 195/94), the complainant Amarsinh Lim babhai claimed that on 7-8-1994 in the morning at about 6 o'clock in Aagara village of Limkheda taluka, the accused were cutting thorny fence. When eyewitness Kanesinh Limbabhai objected, th e accused got enraged, abused them obscenely with intent to intimidate, accused Dalsinh hit eyewitness Fatesinh Limbabhai on the wrist with a sharp weapon causing grievous injury, and the other accused threw stones causing simple hurt to several witnesses including the complainant, all with mutual abetment.

2.2. In the cross-complaint (C.R. No. 196/94), the complainant Dalsinh Dhanabhai Bariya, a member of the Scheduled Tribe, alleged that on 7-8-1994 at about 6 a.m. in Aagara village, he refused permission to the accused to plant thorny fence on his land.

The accused got enraged, abused him obscenely knowing his caste, threw stones causing hurt to him and witnesses, kicked witness Page 2 of 15 R/CR.A/435/2001 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/01/2026 Pankiben on the leg causing hurt, and used derogatory word s to insult his caste to humiliate him, all with mutual abetment.

2.3. Pursuant to these cross-complaints, FIRs were lodged at Limkheda Police Station: C.R. No. 195/94 and C.R. No. 1 96/94 for the respective oFences. During investigation in both cases, panchnama of the scene was prepared, injured were medically examined, statements recorded, accused arrested, weapons sei zed where applicable, and medical certi7cates obtained. After investigation, charge sheets were 7led before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Limkheda, and the cases were committed to the Sessions Court (one to Special Atrocity Court initially and transferred).

3. Upon conclusion of the prosecution evidence in each, the learned Sessions Court put various incriminating circumstances appearing in the evidence to the respondents-accused for their explanation under Section 313 of the Code. In their further statements, the respondents-accused in both cases denie d all the incriminating circumstances as false and stated that they are innocent and have been falsely implicated due to the cr oss-case arising from old land enmity. After examining the oral and documentary evidences and the submissions from both sides in each trial, the learned Sessions Court recorded 7ndings in favour of the respondents-accused and acquitted them of all charg es in both matters.

4. We have heard the learned advocates for the respective parties and carefully examined the oral and documentary evide nce adduced before the learned Sessions Court. During the cou rse of the trials, the prosecution examined several witnesses in cluding Page 3 of 15 R/CR.A/435/2001 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/01/2026 eyewitnesses, injured persons, medical oFicer, and inve stigating oFicers.

5. The learned APP appearing for the appellant-State submitte d that the impugned judgments of acquittal dated 05.03.2 001 in the interconnected cross-cases require interference, as the prosecution evidence establishes the oFences through eyewitness testimonies of injured persons, medical corroboration con7rming grievo us and simple injuries, and investigative steps including sce ne panchnama and weapon seizure, notwithstanding the learned Sessions Court's emphasis on contradictions arising from the land dispute.

5.1 In the case from C.R. No. 195/94, reliance was placed upon the depositions of complainant Amarsinh Limbabhai at Exh-10, Limbabhai Vajabhai at Exh-16, Shankarbhai Limbabhai at Exh-1 7, Gopalbhai Parsingbhai at Exh-18, and Kanesinh Limbabhai at Exh-19, along with medical evidence at Exh-21, establi shing that accused Dalsinh caused grievous injury to Fatesinh Limb abhai with a sharp weapon on the wrist and others threw stones causi ng hurt, with mutual abetment during the quarrel over cutting thorny fence.

It is not disputed that Fatesinh sustained tendon cutt ing incised wound and others had injuries as per certi7cates Exhs.22-25.

Hence, it was contended that the learned Sessions Court erred in acquitting by overemphasising contradictions and land enmity.

5.2 In the cross-case from C.R. No. 196/94, reliance was place d upon depositions of complainant Dalsinh Dhanabhai Bariya at Exh-8, Pankiben at Exh-10, and Natubhai Valchandbhai at Ex h-11, establishing abuse including caste insults, stone thro wing causing hurt to complainant and witnesses, and kicked to Pankibe n, with Page 4 of 15 R/CR.A/435/2001 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/01/2026 mutual abetment over planting thorny fence. It is not di sputed that injuries like swelling and pain were sustained as per medical evidence. Hence, it was contended that the learned Ses sions Court erred in discarding the evidence.

6. The learned APP further submitted that medical oFicer's evidence corroborates injuries, ocular accounts are consis tent on material aspects, and delay in complaint explained by cros s-7ling context, warranting setting aside acquittals and convicti ng respondents.

7. On the other hand, the learned Advocate for the responde nts- accused submitted that the impugned judgments of acquittal do not call for interference, as prosecution failed to prove charges beyond reasonable doubt due to material contradictions, old land enmity with survey and panch, counter-complaints indicating retal iation, lack of independent witnesses despite populated area and gathering villagers, discrepancies in recovery (dharia without blood stains), non-seizure of blood trail/clothes, and medical evidence allowing alternative causes.

8. In C.R. No. 195/94, testimonies unreliable due to varying presence of witnesses, delayed complaint after counter-c ase, no speci7c linkage proved conclusively. In cross-case C.R. No. 196/94, contradictions between complaint and depositions on cast e abuses, conversations, injury attribution, simple injuries o nly, no history to doctor, interested witnesses only. Hence, bene7t of d oubt correctly given, acquittals justi7ed.

9. Having heard the learned counsels for both sides and Page 5 of 15 R/CR.A/435/2001 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/01/2026 perused the records of the interconnected cross-cases aris ing from the same incident on 7-8-1994 in Aagara village over tho rny fence dispute, this Court undertakes comprehensive scrutiny t o determine if acquittals warrant interference under Section 378 of the Code. The cross-complaints reKect opposing versions from prior land enmity, shared issues of contradictions in ocular e vidence, medical ambiguities, investigative de7ciencies, and retaliatory 7ling, requiring holistic evaluation. Independent asses sment shows prosecution failed to prove charges beyond reasonable doubt, evidence in7rm aligning with Sessions Court's reasoned 7ndings.

10. On scrutiny in C.R. No. 195/94, complainant Amarsinh and Kanesinh deposed accused cutting thorny fence, objectio n led to abuse, Dalsinh hitting Fatesinh on wrist with dharia causing grievous injury, others throwing stones. However, cont radictions on other witnesses presence, rendering it doubtful ho w all clearly saw the assault.

11. On scrutiny of the deposition of the complainant Amarsi nh Limbabhai at Exh-10 and eyewitness Kanesinh Limbabhai at Exh-19 in the case arising from C.R. No. 195/94, both witnesse s deposed that on the morning of 7-8-1994 at about 6 a.m., they we re at their house when they saw accused Dalsinh cutting the thorny fence with a dhariya. As per the panch decision, the fence was not t o be cut, so when they objected, accused Dalsinh got enraged, abu sed them obscenely, and attempted to hit Kanesinh but struck Fatesinh Limbabhai on the wrist causing grievous injury, while th e other accused threw loose stones causing simple hurt to several persons.

However, upon careful cross-examination and comparison of th eir statements, signi7cant contradictions emerge regarding the exact presence and positions of the other examined eyewitnes ses at the Page 6 of 15 R/CR.A/435/2001 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/01/2026 crucial moment of the assault. For instance, the complainant stated that Shankarbhai and Gopalbhai arrived only after the injury to Fatesinh, whereas Kanesinh mentioned only himself and hi s father Limbabhai being in the courtyard initially. This varying account raises serious doubt about how all the witnesses could have clearly and uniformly observed the precise manner in which the g rievous injury was inKicted, particularly when their physical locations diFered substantially, making uni7ed visibility improbabl e without independent corroboration.

12. Further examining the deposition of eyewitness Limbab hai Vajabhai at Exh-16, he claimed to have been sitting on a Machda in the courtyard at the time of the incident, from where he allegedly witnessed the entire sequence including the cutting of the fence and the subsequent assault. However, his version does no t align seamlessly with the accounts of the complainant and Kanes inh, as he failed to clarify whether Shankarbhai and Gopalbhai were wi th him on the machda or elsewhere, nor did he specify t he distance and angle from which he observed the critical blow to Fat esinh's wrist. This omission, coupled with the inherent diFiculty of accurately perceiving fast-moving events from an elevated po sition amid a heated quarrel, introduces considerable uncertainty regarding the reliability of his observation of speci7c roles played by each accused.

13. Similarly, the depositions of Shankarbhai Limbabhai at Exh-17 and Gopalbhai Parsingbhai at Exh-18 reveal that they positioned themselves as standing in their respective houses during the initial phase of the incident, only becoming inv olved or arriving closer after the grievous injury had already been inKic ted. Their accounts thus contradict the implication in other test imonies that Page 7 of 15 R/CR.A/435/2001 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/01/2026 multiple witnesses were simultaneously present and able to witness the primary assault 7rsthand. These inconsistencies in the collective ocular evidence regarding who was where, whe n they arrived, and what exactly they saw severely undermine the prosecution's claim of a clear, concerted assault, especi ally in the context of a village dispute where emotions and positi ons could easily aFect perception and recollection.

14. All these testimonies emanate from interested parties c losely related to the complainant side, sharing the common thre ad of the land dispute, and lack any support from independent neutral witnesses despite evidence that many villagers gathered at the spot and separated the parties. In the absence of such impartial corroboration, the material variances in attribution of speci 7c acts to individual accused render the ocular account fragmente d and unreliable, failing to withstand rigorous scrutiny required in a criminal trial where land enmity could inKuence partisan narratives.

15. Turning to the medical evidence in C.R. No. 195/94, Dr.

Sakjibhai Gavjibhai Bhabhor at Exh-21 deposed that on 7-8-1994 he examined the injured including Fatesinh Limbabhai, who h ad an incised wound on the left wrist caused by a sharp weapo n with tendons cut on both sides, constituting a grievous i njury. For the others, he noted clean cuts, abrasions, and complaints of pain possibly caused by blunt objects or stones, but in cross-examination admitted that no history of the incident was provided by any injured, pain complaints could be imaginary, certain woun ds could occur from accidental contact with sharp objects, and abrasion - type injuries could result from falls or collisions. Impo rtantly, he could not recall blood oozing in some cases despite tendon Page 8 of 15 R/CR.A/435/2001 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/01/2026 involvement normally not causing heavy bleeding. While the medical evidence con7rms the existence of injuries, in cluding the grievous one to Fatesinh, it falls short of conclusive ly establishing that they were inKicted intentionally by speci7c accused in a targeted manner, leaving open alternative explanations cons istent with a scuLe or accident during the heated land dispute.

16. The evidence of the investigating oFicers, including Sakjibhai Gavjibhai Bhabhor at Exh-22 and Akhmabhai Ujmabhai Garasiya at Exh-23, reveals signi7cant de7ciencies: no statements of independent witnesses were recorded despite the incide nt occurring in a populated village area where many persons gathered; no investigation into whether the accused sid e sustained any injuries or their treatment; and the panchnama of the dharia recovered from accused Dalsinh at Exh-15 explicitly notes no blood stains, contradicting the panch witness at Exh-14 who c laimed it was blood-stained when seized. These procedural lapses and discrepancies seriously impair the chain of circumstantial evidence linking the muddamal weapon to the crime.

17. A crucial factor is the admission in cross-examination of investigating oFicer Akhambhai Ujmabhai Garasiya at Exh-26 that the counter-complaint from the accused side (C.R. No. 19 6/94) was lodged and registered 7rst, while the present complaint (C.R. No.

195/94) was recorded later at 14:00 hours without any sat isfactory explanation for the delay. This sequence strongly suggests the possibility of retaliatory 7ling to counter the initial complaint, casting substantial doubt on the genuineness and spontan eity of the prosecution version in C.R. No. 195/94.

18. In light of these cumulative weaknesses including Page 9 of 15 R/CR.A/435/2001 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/01/2026 contradictory ocular accounts, ambiguous medical opinions allowing non-criminal causes, investigative omissions, and the timing of cross-complaints the prosecution has manifestl y failed to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt in C.R. No. 195/94. The testimonies lack the requisite reliability and independ ent corroboration necessary for conviction; consequently, the order of acquittal passed by the learned Sessions Court is well founded and merits no interference.

19. Shifting scrutiny to the case from C.R. No. 196/94, the deposition of complainant Dalsinh Dhanabhai Bariya at Exh-8 describes that he refused permission to plant thorny fence , leading to obscene abuses including caste derogatory words to i nsult his caste, stone-throwing hitting his forehead, chest and wai st, a kick to his wife Pankiben on the leg by accused Limbabhai Vajabhai, and hurt to Natubhai on the cheek, all with mutual abetment. However, upon detailed comparison with his original complaint at E xh-9 and cross-examination, glaring omissions and contradictions surface the deposition entirely lacks mention of the alleged c aste related abusive words or speci7c conversations detailed in the complaint, such as threats to remove the fence; he fails to attribute any particular injury to a speci7c accused; and he introduces facts like threatening a 7ght if fence not uprooted, absent from the complaint. These discrepancies render his account inco mplete and inconsistent, severely eroding its trustworthiness as a reliable narrative of intentional caste humiliation or targeted assault.

20. The deposition of Pankiben Dalsingbhai at Exh-10 claims she was kicked on the left leg by accused Limbabhai Vajabhai, resulting in swelling and pain, but this speci7c attribution 7nds no corroboration in the complainant's evidence, where accused Page 10 of 15 R/CR.A/435/2001 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/01/2026 Limbabhai Vajabhai is not even named as present during the incident. Furthermore, other witnesses including Natubhai Valchandbhai at Exh-11 admitted inability to identify who exactly caused Pankiben's injury or certain other hurts, highli ghting the lack of uni7ed support among the prosecution witnesses for precise causation.

21. Natubhai Valchandbhai's evidence similarly suFers from vagueness, as he could not clearly specify which accuse d threw stones causing his cheek injury or link acts to indiv iduals, while admitting the underlying land dispute and survey, which provides a non-caste motive for any quarrel. The medical evidence for this case, again from Dr. Sakjibhai Gavjibhai Bhabhor, records only simple injuries such as swelling on elbow, pain in leg and chest for Pankiben, and similar minor contusions for others, opin ing they could be caused by blunt objects, stones, or even accidental collisions during running or scuLe. Critically, no history was noted, and no grievous or sharp weapon injuries were found despit e the context of alleged targeted attacks.

22. The admitted old land dispute with survey and panch decision, acknowledged by multiple witnesses, establi shes a clear non caste related motive for the incident, while the complete absence of caste insults in depositions despite their prominence in the complaint suggests embellishment to invoke Atrocities Act provisions.

23. On an overall review of the evidence in C.R. No. 196/94, the prosecution version appears heavily inKuenced by partisan interest and prior enmity, lacking spontaneous details, consist ent attribution, or independent corroboration, thereby failing to inspire Page 11 of 15 R/CR.A/435/2001 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/01/2026 con7dence for proving either the physical assaults or t he speci7c intent for caste humiliation beyond reasonable doubt.

24. The eyewitness evidence across both cases is marred by serious contradictions that substantially diminish its reliability variations in presence of witnesses at the spot, their exact positions (house, courtyard, tree), timing of involvement, speci7 c conversations or abuses uttered, and precise roles of in dividual accused in causing injuries. Although the medical evidence con7rms the presence of injuries grievous in one instance and simple in others it does not provide unequivocal support for intentional, weapon speci7c, or targeted causation by the accused, as the doctor repeatedly allowed for possibilities of b lunt impacts, stones, accidental contact, falls, or even imaginary pain complaints.

Despite the incident occurring in a populated village with evidence of many villagers gathering to separate the parties, the prosecution inexplicably failed to examine any independent or neutral witnesses who could have provided an impartial account, relying sol ely on interested partisans from one side.

25. Investigative lapses are evident failure to seize blood trails or blood stained clothes despite claims of bleeding; non -recording of independent statements; inadequate probing of accused side injuries; and unexplained delay in registering one comp laint after the counter one. The recovery and panchnama of the dhari a show internal contradictions regarding blood stains, with the d ocument noting none while a panch claimed presence, raising gra ve doubts on its linkage to the oFence. The undisputed prior lan d animosity, including survey and panch proceedings, furnishes a com pelling motive for exaggeration or false implication through cross- complaints rather than a one-sided criminal assault. The Page 12 of 15 R/CR.A/435/2001 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/01/2026 cumulative eFect of these in7rmities renders the prosecution narrative in both cases improbable and unconvincing, leaving multiple reasonable alternative explanations unexplored and unexcluded.

26. In these circumstances, where direct linkage to speci7c accused remains unestablished and reasonable doubt permeate s the evidence, the Court cannot conclude guilt beyond reasonable doubt; the acquittals must therefore be upheld without interference. While no abatement due to death is present unlike some cases, the evidence fails to individually 7x resp onsibility on each accused with the required certainty. Proof of mutual abetment or common intention necessarily requires clear, reliable ev idence of concerted action, which is conspicuously absent amid the contradictions and omissions.

27. The combined weight of all aforementioned weaknesses ocular inconsistencies, medical ambiguities, investigat ive de7ciencies, documentary discrepancies, absence of inde pendents, and enmity-driven context irrefutably demonstrates that the prosecution has failed to discharge its burden of proving the charges beyond reasonable doubt in either cross-case.

28. At this stage, this Court may refer to the decision o f the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Rajesh Prasad v. State of Bihar and Another [(2022) 3 SCC 471] encapsulated the legal position covering the 7eld after considering various earlier judgments and held as below: - “29. After referring to a catena of judgments, this Court culled out the following general principles regarding the powers o f the appellate court while dealing with an appeal against an order acquittal in the Page 13 of 15 R/CR.A/435/2001 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/01/2026 following words: (Chandrappa case [Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka, (2007) 4 SCC 415] “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, re appreciate and reconsider the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded.

(2) The Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 puts no limitat ion, restriction or condition on exercise of such power and an appell ate court on the evidence before it may reach its own conclusion, bot h on questions of fact and of law.

(3) Various expressions, such as, “substantial and compe lling reasons”, “good and su4icient grounds”, “very strong cir cumstances”, “distorted conclusions”, “glaring mistakes”, etc. are no t intended to curtail extensive powers of an appellate court in an appeal against acquittal. Such phraseologies are more in the nature o f “5ourishes 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 tha t 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 g uilty by a competent court of law. Secondly, the accused having se cured his acquittal, the presumption of his innocence is further reinforced, rea4irmed and strengthened by the learned Sessions Court.

(5) If two reasonable conclusions are possible on the b asis of the evidence on record, the appellate court should not d isturb the 7nding of acquittal recorded by the learned Sessions Court.”

29. In the case of H.D. Sundara & Ors. v. State of Karnataka [(2023) 9 SCC 581] the Hon’ble Apex Court has summarized the principles governing the exercise of appellate jurisdiction while dealing with an appeal against acquittal under Section 378 of CrPC as follows: - “8.1. The acquittal of the accused further strengthens the presumption of innocence;

8.2. The appellate court, while hearing an appeal a gainst acquittal, is entitled to reappreciate the oral and documentary evidence;

Page 14 of 15

R/CR.A/435/2001 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/01/2026 8.3. The appellate court, while deciding an appeal against acquittal, after reappreciating the evidence, is required to c onsider whether the view taken by the learned Sessions 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 appella te 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 ord er of acquittal only if it comes to a 7nding that the only conclusion whi ch 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.”

30. In light of the above legal position and for the reasons recorded in the foregoing paragraphs, coupled with the fact that both the cases of prosecution does not get support from the evidence recorded by the learned Sessions Court, the present appeals fail and are accordingly dismissed. Records and Proceedings, if any, be remitted to the Court concerned forthwith.

(ILESH J. VORA,J)

(R. T. VACHHANI, J)

Kaushal Rathod

Page 15 of 15

Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judges.

Digitally signed by: KAUSHAL MAHESHBHAI RATHOD(HCD0078), ENGLISH STENOGRAPHER GRADE TWO CLASS TWO, at High Court of Gujarat on 15/01/2026 11:41:07