RUSTOMSING @ BABLU RAVINDRASINH v. STATE OF GUJARAT

R/CR.A/2291/2019 ORDER DATED: 23/01/2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/CRIMINAL APPEAL (AGAINST CONVICTION) NO. 2291 of 2019 With R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 6 of 2020 With R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 240 of 2020 With R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 241 of 2020 With CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR SUSPENSION OF SENTENCE) NO.

1 of 2025

In R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 241 of 2020

With

R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 326 of 2020

FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ILESH J. VORA

and

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. T. VACHHANI

========================================================== Approved for Reporting Yes No ========================================================== RUSTOMSING @ BABLU RAVINDRASINH Versus STATE OF GUJARAT ========================================================== Appearance:

Criminal Appeal No. 2291 of 2019:

MR JAGDHISH SATAPARA(5524) for the Appellant(s) No. 1 Criminal Appeal No. 6 of 2020:

MR. SOEB R. BHOHARIA(2205) for the Appellant(s) No. 1 VALIMOHAMMED PATHAN(6383) for the Appellant(s) No. 1 Criminal Appeal Nos. 240 & 241 of 2020:

MR NIRAD D BUCH(4000) for the Appellant(s) No. 1 MRS. BHAVINI N. BUCH(5403) for the Appellant(s) No. 1 MR RONAK B. RAVAL, APP for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1 ========================================================== CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ILESH J. VORA and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. T. VACHHANI Page 1 of 34 R/CR.A/2291/2019 ORDER DATED: 23/01/2026

Date : 23/01/2026

ORAL JUDGMENT

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

1. The present appeals arise out of a common judgment and order dated 22.03.2019 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Morbi, in Sessions Case Nos. 01 of 2011, 22 of 2012, 13 of 2012, and 30 of 2014, whereby the appellants in Criminal Appeal Nos. 2291 of 2019, 6 of 2020, 240 of 2020, and 241 of 2020 were convicted for the offences charged against them, while the respondents in Criminal Appeal No. 326 of 2020 were acquitted. Therefore, the present appeals are being decided by this common judgment.

2. The brief facts leading to the filing of present appeals are as under:

2.1 The prosecution case, in brief, stems from an incident that occurred on 20.08.2010 around 7:00 p.m. on the road leading towards Morbi. Four armed individuals boarded a State Transport bus bearing registration number GJ-18-Y-1214, which was traveling on the Bhuj-Talaja route.

One of the accused approached the driver and demanded to stop the bus.

When the driver refused, the accused fired a shot at him using a revolver or pistol, injuring him. During this chaos, the accused fired another shot at a passenger, causing injury. The assailants then threatened the passengers, shouting on them to stay still, and proceeded to loot bags containing valuables from the rear luggage compartment as well as personal belongings and mobile phones from the passengers. Overcome by fear, none of the passengers resisted. As a part of conspiracy, the four assailants then escaped in an Indica car that was following the bus, with assistance from other accomplices in carrying out the crime. L ater, while fleeing, they encountered a border checkpost manned by police personnel Page 2 of 34 R/CR.A/2291/2019 ORDER DATED: 23/01/2026 and opened fire at them to evade capture.

2.2 Based on these events, the complainant lodged a First Information Report (FIR) at Morbi Taluka Police Station, registered as C.R. No. I-102 of 2010, under Sections 395, 396, and 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), along with Sections 25(1)(a), 25(1-A), 25(1-B)(a), and 27(3)

of the Arms Act, 1959. The investigating officer conducted a thorough probe, including preparing panchnamas at the crime scene, recording statements of witnesses, effecting arrests of the accused with accompanying arrest panchnamas, seizing relevant articles, sending them for forensic examination, conducting identification parades, and gathering other necessary evidence. Upon finding sufficient material, a charge sheet was filed against the accused before the learned Additional Chi ef Judicial Magistrate, Morbi, who committed the case to the Court of Sessions.

2.3 After completion of trial, the learned Sessions Judge passed the impugned judgment on 22.03.2019, convicting Rustomsing @ Bablu Ravindrasinh (Accused No. 1, appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 2291 o f 2019) in Sessions Case No. 01 of 2011; Abidkhan s/o Ijamatkhan Pathan (Accused No. 11, appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 6 of 2020) in Sessions Case No. 22 of 2012; Alkesh @ Akhilesh @ Dalbirsinh s/o Udalsinh @ Ravindrasinh Bhaduria (Accused No. 12, appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 240 of 2020) in Sessions Case No. 13 of 2012; and Rupendra @ Rupesh @ Bipin s/o Ramsang Asaram Mishra (Accused No.

13, appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 241 of 2020) in Sessions Case N o.

30 of 2014, for the aforesaid offences. However, Mohansinh Rupsing Zala (Accused No. 2), Ghanshyam @ Bholo Gunvant (Accused No. 3), Kaluji @ Kanji Shankarji Rajani (Accused No. 4), Radheshyam Ba bulal (Accused No. 6), Nareshvan Prahladvan Goswami (Accused No. 7), Gandalal Nagardas (Accused No. 8), and Ramlakhan Ramshankar Modi Page 3 of 34 R/CR.A/2291/2019 ORDER DATED: 23/01/2026 (Accused No. 9) were acquitted in the lead case.

2.4 Aggrieved by the convictions, the aforesaid convict assailed the order by preferring Criminal Appeal Nos. 2291 of 2019, 6 of 2020, 240 of 2020, and 241 of 2020 before this Court. Additionally, the State filed Criminal Appeal No. 326 of 2020 challenging the acquittal of the aforementioned seven accused. All these appeals have been clubbed together for hearing and disposal, as they emanate from a common judgment.

3. We have heard the learned advocates for the respective parties and carefully examined the oral and documentary evidence adduced before the learned Sessions Court. During the course of the trials, the prosecution examined witnesses and produced documents as detailed below:

~:: Oral Evidence ::~

P.W.

No. Particular (Witness) Exh.

1 Dr. Sadiq Husain Gulam Mahmud Momin 39

2 Dineshbhai Jivanbhai Dhamecha 164

3 Bharatbhai Babubhai Chavda 166

4 Lakhmanbhai Narshibhai Thoriya 167

5 Maheshbhai Balubhai Thoriya 169

6 Hushenbhai Hasambhai Chaniya 170

7 Vaneshbhai Shivabhai Patel 172

8 Dineshbhai Vajubhai Gadhavi 174

9 Dhirajgiri Bhagwangiri 175

10 Rameshbhai Nyalchand 177

11 Maheshbhai Lakhmanbhai 179

12 Dineshbhai Shamjibhai Dabhi 182

Page 4 of 34

R/CR.A/2291/2019 ORDER DATED: 23/01/2026 P.W.

No. Particular (Witness) Exh.

13 Rajeshbhai Shantlal 185

14 Sanjaybhai Ramanikbhai 186

15 Bhaveshbhai Jashvantbhai Pandya 187

16 Dineshbhai Jayantilal Bhat 188

17 Vinodbhai Gangaram Patel 189

18 Jitubhai Prahladbhai Patel 190

19 Arjunbhai Chelabhai Sindhwani 192(A)

20 Lakkirajsinh Jayvirsinh Chudasama 193(A)

21 Lalubha Hathubha Zhala 194(A)

22 Yogeshbhai Keshavji Thakkar 196

23 Anilbhai Pratapbhai Thakkar 197

24 Pradeepbhai Hanumanmal Bhansali 198

25 Hotchand Mahadevmal 199

26 Mukeshbhai Harjivanbhai 200

27 Hitenbhai Chhaganbhai 201

28 Dilipbhai Naranjibhai 202

29 Pareshbhai Tribhuvanbhai 203

30 Nileshbhai Nartvarlal 204

31 Jiteshbhai alias Jagubhai Bhanukantbhai 205 32 Shantilal Hansrajbhai 206 33 Jigneshbhai Shivalalbia 207 34 Chiragbhai Vallabhbhai Kalariya 209 35 Prafulbhai Dineshbhai Soni 210 36 Sunilbhai Lalchand Shah 211 37 Dharmeshbhai Jagdishbhai Khandla 212 38 Keshubhai Lakhabhai Patel 213 39 Shanitlal Pravinbhai Parmar 214 40 Velubha Vishubha Gohil 215 41 Kirankumar Madhavlal Chaudhary 216 42 Yuvarajsinh Anadubha Chudasama 217 43 Manjulaben Ishargiri Goswami 219 44 Jagdishbhai Ramshibhai Solanki 220 Page 5 of 34 R/CR.A/2291/2019 ORDER DATED: 23/01/2026 P.W.

No. Particular (Witness) Exh.

45 Yunuskhan alias Bholo Sorabkhan Pathan 221 46 Jayendrasinh Mohansinh Rajput 222 47 Complainant Ashokkumar Gopaldas Nai 223 48 Karanabhai Machhabhai Panchiya 229 49 Dilipbhai Vashrambhai Kansagar 231 50 Prakashbhai Kantilal Palaan 232 51 Jagdishbhai Hargovindbhai 234 52 Vimalbhai Gunvantray Jani 243 53 Upendrabhai Anandjibhai Patel 244 54 Govindjibhai Keshavjibhai Kailani 245 55 Hushenbhai Jumabhai Piludiya 246 56 Bhupendrabhai Savjibhai Jetpariya 247 57 Ghanshyamsinh Surubha Gohil 249 58 Abhesinh Dhirubha Parmar 250 59 Ashoksinh Jayantilal Soni 253 60 Sanjaybhai Jatashankar Soni 254 61 Kumarbhai Kantilal Solanki 255 62 Mahipal Anandjibhai Tanna 256 63 Prabhudashbhai Khetshibhai Soni 257 64 Mukeshbhai Dhanjibhai Soni 258 65 Nileshbhai Pravinbhai Soni 259 66 Deepakbhai Kantilal Patel 260 67 Hareshbhai Popatlal Sejpara 262 68 Kamleshbhai Dharalal Vaithani 263 69 Sanjaybhai Labhshankarbhai Rawal 264 70 Nileshbhai Vardhimal Doshi 265 71 Kishorsinh Pathubha Jadeja 266 72 Harpalsinh Jitubha Jadeja 267 73 Jentibhai Jalariya 269 74 Ajaysinh Baldevsinh Gohil 271 75 Surendrasinh Amirsinh Solanki 272 76 Sangeetaben Manchhaji Modi 275 Page 6 of 34 R/CR.A/2291/2019 ORDER DATED: 23/01/2026 P.W.

No. Particular (Witness) Exh.

77 Jagdishbhai Khimjibhai Samadiya 276

78 Bhanuprasad Prakashbhai Baman 277

79 Karshanbhai Jivabhai Patel 280

80 Fakirbhai Mahmadbhai 281

81 Rameshbhai Haribhai 285

82 Bhikhabhai Rambhai 286

83 Laxmanbhai Panabhai Shrimali 294

84 Tansukhbhai Nathalal Ashara 296

85 Hasmukhlal Thakorlal Modi 305

86 Police Witness Hareshkumar Jasvantray Bhat 316 87 Panjivanbhai Virjibhai 420 88 Sureshbhai Mansukhbhai Parmar 435 89 Jumasha Nursha Shahmadar 437 90 Avachalbhai Ratabhai Bhojani 439 91 Merambhai Prabhatbhai Rathod 444 92 Ranvijaysinh Jinakubha Godhal 455 93 Hareshbhai Bhagwanbhai Satani 457 94 Naranbhai Kalabhai Muchhar 461 95 Thakarshibhai Gordhanbhai Bavarva 471 96 Rameshbhai Gordhanbhai Pandya 485 97 Hemchandbhai Shivajibhai 486 98 Amarshibhai Magnabhai Parmar 487 99 Gaurangbhai Jyotindrabhai Oza 493 100 Police Witness Nanjibhai Surajbhai Ninama 497 101 Police Witness Jorajibhai Savjibhai Bhati 505 102 Police Witness Amrutlal Jivanbhai Dalsaniya 518 103 Police Witness Jayendrasinh Jilubha Parmar 537 104 Police Witness Jitendrasinh Madhavsinh Yadav 543 105 Police Witness Mahipalsinh Vijaysinh Zhala 546 ~:: Documentary Evidence ::~ Page 7 of 34 R/CR.A/2291/2019 ORDER DATED: 23/01/2026 Sr. No. Particular (Document) Exh.

1 Yadi to P.M. 40

2 P.M. Report 42

3 Arrest Panchnama 165

4 Arrest Panchnama 168

5 Arrest Panchnama 171

6 Discovery Panchnama 173

7 Panchnama 176

8 Arrest Panchnama 178

9 Arrest Panchnama 183

10 Scene of Offence Panchnama 192

11 Panchnama 193

12 Panchnama 194

13 Complaint (FIR) 224

14 Panchnama 230

15 Panchnama 233

16 Discovery Panchnama 248

17 Discovery Panchnama 251

18 RC Book Copy of muddamal Innova 273

19 Insurance Copy of Muddamal Vehicle 274 20 Inspection Report of Bus Involved in Incident 297 21 Inspection Report of Indica Car Involved in Incident 298 22 Order regarding Station Diary Entry 299 23 P.S.I., Sanathavad letter 300 24 Permission Letter for seizure by Accused 301 25 Copy of FIR Viramgam P.S. Crime No. 102/10 317 26 Map of Scene of Offence 323 27 Copy of Exh-38 of Addl. Sessions Case No. 350 350 28 Inquest Panchnama 398 29 Letter regarding Muddamal Inspection 399 30 Letter from FSL Office 400 31 Letter regarding Muddamal Inspection 401 Page 8 of 34 R/CR.A/2291/2019 ORDER DATED: 23/01/2026 Sr. No. Particular (Document) Exh.

32 Letter from FSL Office 402

33 Letter regarding Muddamal Inspection 403 34 Letter from FSL Office 404 35 Letter regarding Muddamal Inspection 405 36 Letter regarding Muddamal Inspection 406 37 Forwarding Letter for Muddamal Examination 407 38 Muddamal Examination Report 408 to 409 39 Forwarding Letter for Muddamal Examination 410 40 Muddamal Examination Report 411 41 Forwarding Letter for Muddamal Examination 412 42 Muddamal Examination Report 413 43 Demonstration Panchnama 421 44 Demonstration Panchnama 422 45 Demonstration Panchnama 436 46 List regarding Identification Parade 440 47 Panchnama regarding Identification Parade 441 48 List regarding Identification Parade 458 49 Letter regarding Identification Parade 459 50 Original Panchnama 460 51 List regarding Identification Parade 462 52 Letter regarding Identification Parade 463 53 Letter regarding Identification Parade 464 54 Panchnama of Seizure by Accused 465 55 Letter regarding Identification Parade 466 56 Letter regarding Identification Parade 467 57 Panchnama of Seizure by Accused 468 58 Demonstration Panchnama 488 59 Papers regarding Charge-sheet Sanction 494 60 Panchnama 498 61 Complaint given by PSI through informant 499 62 Forwarding Letter of Map of Scene of Offence 501 63 Station Diary Entry No.31/10 Copy 506 64 Depute Order 507 Page 9 of 34 R/CR.A/2291/2019 ORDER DATED: 23/01/2026 Sr. No. Particular (Document) Exh.

65 Station Diary Entry No.32/10 Copy 508

66 Letter for registering offence as per complaint 509 67 Depute Order 510 68 Fax Message regarding serious offence 511 69 Panchnama of Seizure of Muddamal Car 519 70 P.M. Report 520 71 P.M. Report 521 72 Soma Ramdas Angadiya Firm receipts (Total 10 pages, Exh-523) 523 73 Magnabhai Angadiya Firm receipts (Total 12 pages, Exh-524) 524 74 Document of house purchased by accused Govindsinh 525 75 Letter to RTO Officer Gwalior 526 76 Letter from RTO Office Gwalior along with insurance 527 & 528 77 Letter regarding Mobile Call Details 529 & 530 78 Post-mortem Form 520 & 521 79 Copy of Panchnama and FIR of Crime No.3072/11 544 & 545 80 Letter from Morbi P.S. ASI 552 81 Copy of FIR Sanand P.S. Crime No.217/10 553 4. Learned advocate for the appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 2291 of 2019, vehemently assailed the impugned judgment on several grounds.

He submitted that the learned Sessions Court erred in relying on the identification parade, as the appellant was allegedly shown to the witnesses at the police station prior to the formal parade, r endering it unreliable and violative of fair procedure. He pointed out that the bus passengers, including the conductor, failed to provide any prior description of the assailants in their statements under Section 161 CrPC, and the parade was conducted after a significant delay of over a ye ar, Page 10 of 34 R/CR.A/2291/2019 ORDER DATED: 23/01/2026 which casts doubt on the witnesses' memory. Further, he argued that the ballistic evidence was inconclusive; the bullets recovered from the deceased did not match the cartridge cases found at the scene or the weapon allegedly seized from the appellant, as per the FSL report . The postmortem report, while confirming death by gunshot, did not specify the type of weapon, and the delay of two months in sending articles to FSL raised suspicions of tampering. No looted valuables, including the claimed gold ornaments worth Rs. 45 lakhs, were recovered from the appellant, despite the prosecution's case of dacoity. He contended t hat the appellant's plea under Section 313 CrPC was not properly considered, and the chain of circumstances was incomplete, failing to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Relying on precedents from the Hon'ble Supreme Court in various cases and Gujarat High Court judgments emphasizing the need for unassailable identification, he urged for acquittal, submitting that the conviction under Sections 395, 396, and 120(B) IPC read with Arms Act provisions was perverse and liable to be set aside.

5. Learned advocates for the appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 6 of 2020, jointly submitted that the learned Sessions Court's conviction wa s based on shaky foundations, particularly the eyewitness testimony whi ch lacked corroboration. They argued that the appellant was not identified by any passenger during the initial investigation, and the identification parade was flawed as the appellant's face was partially covered during the incident, yet no such simulation was done in the parade. The witnes ses, they contended, turned hostile in part and could not recall specific roles of the appellant in the alleged dacoity. On the medical evidence, they highlighted discrepancies in the postmortem report, noting that the bullets extracted were of different calibers, suggesting multiple wea pons, but only one pistol was recovered without linking it ballistically to the crime.

The delay in arrest 14 months after the incident further weakene d the Page 11 of 34 R/CR.A/2291/2019 ORDER DATED: 23/01/2026 case, as no independent evidence connected the appellant to the Indica car or the escape route. They assailed the consolidation of cases, submitting it prejudiced the appellant by clubbing unrelated evidence. Invoking Section 299 CrPC proceedings against absconding co-accused as irrelevant to this appellant, they argued that the prosecution fa iled to prove conspiracy under Section 120(B) IPC, as there was no overt act attributed solely to him. Thus, they prayed for reversal of t he conviction and acquittal, by emphasizing that the sentence imposed was disproportionate without direct proof of firing.

6. Learned advocates for the appellants in Criminal Appeal Nos. 240 of 2020 and 241 of 2020, advanced common submissions for both appeals, given the interconnected facts. They contended that the le arned Sessions Court overlooked material contradictions in the prosecution evidence, such as the failure to recover any looted items or the Indica car's number plate, which was crucial to the escape narrative. For Accused No. 12, they argued that his identification was suspect, as witnesses described a "tall man with a mustache," but no such details were recorded promptly, and the parade lacked dummies of simila r build.

The ballistic mismatch was emphasized: cartridge cases from the scene were for a revolver, while the seized weapon was a pistol, per FSL findings, rendering the recovery inadmissible under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. For Accused No. 13, they submitted that his role wa s peripheral at best, with no witness attributing firing or looting to him directly; the conspiracy charge failed for want of meeting of m inds. They pointed to the telephonic information by the bus conductor as the true first information, hitting the FIR under Section 162 CrPC. The delay in forensic submission and absence of CDR evidence linking the appellants to the scene were highlighted as fatal lapses. Thus it is urge d to set aside the convictions under the IPC and Arms Act, submitting that the Page 12 of 34 R/CR.A/2291/2019 ORDER DATED: 23/01/2026 appellants deserved acquittal to prevent miscarriage of justice.

7. Learned APP for the respondent-State in all appeals, stoutly defended the impugned judgment, submitting that the learned Sessions Court rightly convicted the appellants based on overwhelming evidence.

He argued that the incident of armed dacoity on the bus was vividly corroborated by 105 witnesses, including injured passengers and the conductor, whose consistent narratives established the sequence:

boarding, firing at the driver and passenger, looting, and escape. T he identification parades, conducted before a Magistrate, were fair and reliable, with key witnesses like the complainant and conductor positively identifying the appellants without prior exposure.

7.1. On ballistic evidence, he contended that minor discrepancies did not undermine the chain, as the FSL report confirmed gunfire residues, and recoveries under Section 27 Evidence Act linked weapons to the crime. The postmortem reports unequivocally proved homicidal deaths due to gunshots, supporting charges under Section 396 IPC. He urged that the consolidation of cases was proper under Section 223 CrPC, given the common transaction, and the absconding accused's proceedings under Section 299 CrPC did not prejudice others, while dismissing the defe nse pleas of delay or tampering as unsubstantiated, he submitted that the loot's non-recovery was not fatal in dacoity cases.

7.2. For the acquittal appeal (Criminal Appeal No. 326 of 2020), he briefly submitted that the learned Sessions Court erred in ac quitting the respondents therein, but as the matter is connected, it be considered on merits. Overall, he prayed for dismissal of the conviction appeal s and allowance of the acquittal appeal, emphasizing deterrence for such heinous crimes affecting public transport safety.

Page 13 of 34

R/CR.A/2291/2019 ORDER DATED: 23/01/2026 8. It is a well settled principle of criminal law that convic ting an innocent person has serious consequences, not only for the individual but also for society. Therefore, a Court can record a conviction only when the prosecution proves its case beyond reasonable doubt, and the justice system must reduce the risk of wrongful conviction as far as poss ible.

When the evidence is examined on this standard, it is clear that the prosecution examined 105 witnesses and produced documentary evidence. It is firmly proved that in the incident involving the bus on the Bhuj Talaja route within the jurisdiction of Morbi Taluka Polic e Station, two persons died and their deaths were unnatural. This is supported by the medical evidence of Dr. Sadiq Husain Gulam Mahmud Momin (PW- 1, Exh.39), who conducted the post-mortems. In his evidence, Dr. Sadi q Husain Gulam Mahmud Momin (PW-1, Exh.39) explained the injuries in detail. He stated that the driver, Baldev Jashubha, had a gunshot injury on the chest with both entry and exit wounds showing a close-range shot, which caused hemorrhagic shock, and that a deformed bullet marked J -4 was recovered from the chest cavity. Regarding the passenger Amr utji Galabhai, he stated that there was a gunshot injury to the abdomen causing damage to vital organs such as the intestines and liver, that bullet H-4 was recovered from the pelvic region, and that death occurred due to peritonitis and shock caused by the gunshot injury. In cross-examinati on, he clarified that the bullets were of different calibres, J -4 appearing to be 7.65 mm and H-4 appearing to be 8 mm, but he could not identify the exact firearm without ballistic examination. He denied any tampering with the bodies or reports and confirmed that the post-mortems we re conducted immediately after the inquest. This medical evidence is reliable, is supported by the post-mortem reports (Exhs.42, 520, 521), and matches the eyewitness version of firing inside the bus. The defence could not bring out any material contradiction. This evidence clearly Page 14 of 34 R/CR.A/2291/2019 ORDER DATED: 23/01/2026 proves that the deaths were homicidal and caused by firearms, s upporting the charge under Section 396 IPC.

9. Among the oral evidence, the testimony of Ranvijaysinh Jinakubha Godhal (PW-92, Exh.455), the bus conductor, is important because he was on duty and claims to have seen the incident. In his exam ination-in- chief, he stated that at about 7:00 p.m. on 20.08.2010, four persons came near the driver and him, showed firearms, forced the passengers, including him, to move towards the back of the bus, and when the bus was not stopped immediately, one assailant fired at the driver . He further stated that the assailants took bags, including those of two Angadiya persons, and escaped in an Indica car, the number of which he re ad from behind. He also stated that he identified accused persons such as Abidkhan, Alkesh, and Rupesh in different identification parades.

However, in cross-examination, certain facts reduce the strengt h of his identification evidence is not too fatal to discard entire exer cise of T.I.

parade. He admitted that the person who fired had his face covered with a cloth, that he saw the Indica car from inside the bus and from a di stance, and that he came to know about the arrest of the accused only afte r several months, while the record shows that the arrests took pla ce much later. In these circumstances, his evidence supports the occurrenc e and the manner of the offence.

10. Regarding the conduct of the identification parades, the prosecution examined Hareshbhai Bhagwanbhai Satani (PW-93, Exh.457), who was then Deputy Mamlatdar, and Naranbhai Kalabhai Muchhar (PW-94, Exh.461), who was Mamlatdar and Executive Magistrate in 2011. Hareshbhai Bhagwanbhai Satani (PW-93, Exh.457)

explained the procedure followed, including keeping witnesses separate, arranging several persons with similar features in a line, ensuring fairness Page 15 of 34 R/CR.A/2291/2019 ORDER DATED: 23/01/2026 through panchas, allowing the accused to change appearance such as hairstyle or clothes, placing the accused properly in the line, and recording the identification with signatures of panchas and the witness. In cross-examination, he confirmed that no hints were given and that pr oper safeguards were followed. Naranbhai Kalabhai Muchhar (PW-94, Exh.461) stated that the parade was held in a well-lit room, wit nesses were kept separately, the accused were brought with faces cover ed, staff were instructed to prevent any improper exposure, and the accused disclosed their names, including “Alkesh Rajput Thakor” and “Abidkhan @ Aful”. He stated that the witness Ranvijaysinh was called, the purpose of the parade was explained, and the witness identified the accus ed by touching and taking them out of the line. He further stated that the accused were given an opportunity to change position or clothes and tha t the witness declined a repeat parade. In cross-examination, he c onfirmed that there was no communication between the witnesses and the a ccused before the parade. Taken together, their evidence shows that the identification parades were conducted with proper safeguards.

11. The panch witness Thakarshibhai Gordhanbhai Bavarva (PW-95, Exh.471) supported the fact that an identification parade was held at the Mamlatdar office. He stated that several persons were made to stand in a line, that witnesses identified the concerned person, and he identi fied his signature on the panchnama and stated the approximate time of the parade. Although he could not recall every minor detail, such as the exact name of the person identified, his evidence supports the holding of the parade and the contemporaneous record. In cross-examination, he state d that the procedure was fair and that no coercion was used.

12. On an overall assessment of the identification evidence, the defence pointed out alleged procedural lapses, lack of detailed Page 16 of 34 R/CR.A/2291/2019 ORDER DATED: 23/01/2026 descriptions in statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C., and changes in appearance over time. However, the evidence of the Executive Magistrates Hareshbhai Bhagwanbhai Satani (PW-93, Exh.457) and Naranbhai Kalabhai Muchhar (PW-94, Exh.461) consistently shows that the conductor Ranvijaysinh Jinakubha Godhal (PW-92, Exh.455)

identified accused Abidkhan, Alkesh, and Rupesh in their respective parades. The panchnamas show dates that broadly match the prosecution version of separate parades held at different times. The difference pointed out by the defence, that the witness referred in cross-examination to being called after “a few months” or “about a year” while documents show specific dates, does not by itself destroy the prosecution case, as it is common for witnesses to be inaccurate about time while remaining correct about the main event.

13. The complainant Ashokkumar Gopaldas Nai (PW-47, Exh.223)

stated that he was travelling with Angadiya parcels and that a t about 7:30 p.m. near Nagdavas, four persons came from the rear seats of the bus, moved forward shouting orders, some carrying firearms. He state d that firing took place, his companion Amrutji Galabhai was injured, the assailants forced the driver to stop when he refused to succumb, the accused fired at him as well, took passengers’ bags including Anga diya bags, and fled in an Indica car. He also stated that he wa s called for identification parades on three occasions and identified the acc used, and in Court he claimed to identify two accused and Rupesh. However , in cross-examination, he admitted that it was dark, that he could not clearly state who exactly entered for looting, and that at the police st ation he was shown the accused as arrested persons before he identified them . This admission weakens the value of his identification evidence. The lea rned Sessions Court was therefore right in relying on his evidence mai nly to prove the occurrence and the manner of the offence, while treating his Page 17 of 34 R/CR.A/2291/2019 ORDER DATED: 23/01/2026 identification of specific accused with caution. Although he was declared hostile on certain aspects, his evidence cannot be completely rejected.

14. Regarding the post-incident nakabandi and chase, the prosecution examined Hareshkumar Jasvantray Bhat (PW-86, Exh.316), Lakkirajsinh Jayvirsinh Chudasama (PW-20, Exh.193(A)), and Bhanuprasad Prakashbhai Baman (PW-78, Exh.277). Hareshkumar Jasvantray Bhat (PW-86, Exh.316) stated that after receiving information, a blockade w as set up, an Indica car was noticed, and firing allegedly took plac e near Dolatpara road. He claimed to have seen the shooter in the light of his vehicle and to have identified accused including Rustamsinh and Abi d.

However, in cross-examination, he admitted that important details , such as seeing all four persons alight from the Indica and seeing them in the headlights of the Logan car, were not recorded in his earlier st atement.

This omission in its entirity cannot affect the reliability of his identification. Lakkirajsinh Jayvirsinh Chudasama (PW-20, Exh.193(A))

stated that he did not see the four persons and did not note the number of the Indica. Even after being declared hostile, his evidence remained uncertain. In cross-examination, he admitted that it was dark a nd that he could not see the four persons who allegedly fired. In such circumstances, any later identification has little value. Bhanuprasad Prakashbhai Baman (PW-78, Exh.277) stated only that he was driving, that vehicle checking was going on, that they chased an Indica, and that when firing s ounds were heard he bent down. He gave no clear details of the assaila nts and remained largely unhelpful even after being declared hostile. The learned Sessions Court rightly found that these witnesses do not help in fi xing identity or participation, though they support the fact of pursuit. Eve n if some nakabandi or chase witnesses are weak on identification, the case does not fail, as the law depends on the quality, not the number, of witnesses. The main incident of armed assailants stopping the bus , firing, Page 18 of 34 R/CR.A/2291/2019 ORDER DATED: 23/01/2026 looting bags, and fleeing in an Indica is supported by Ranvijaysinh Jinakubha Godhal (PW-92, Exh.455) and other reliable evidence.

15. The prosecution also examined several passenger witnesses whose evidence is consistent on the main facts of the incident. Bhaveshbhai Jashvantbhai Pandya (PW-15, Exh.187) stated that he heard gunfire while seated near the complainant and was ordered to move to the back of the bus. Dineshbhai Jayantilal Bhat (PW-16, Exh.188) stated that he woke up on hearing a loud sound, was threatened not to move or use his mobile phone, and saw that the driver and an Angadiya person were shot, afte r which the assailants escaped in a vehicle. In cross-examination, Bhaveshbhai Jashvantbhai Pandya (PW-15, Exh.187) stated that the bus lights were on, and Dineshbhai Jayantilal Bhat (PW-16, Exh.188) stated that the bus was internally lit and that he identified accused Alkesh by build and voice in the identification parade. Other passengers, nam ely Lalubha Hathubha Zhala (PW-21, Exh.194(A)), Chiragbhai Vallabhbhai Kalariya (PW-34, Exh.209), Dharmeshbhai Jagdishbhai Khandla (PW-37, Exh.212), Keshubhai Lakhabhai Patel (PW-38, Exh.213), Shantilal Pravinbhai Parmar (PW-39, Exh.214), Velubha Vishubha Gohil (PW-40, Exh.215), Yuvarajsinh Anadubha Chudasama (PW-42, Exh.217), Manjulaben Ishargiri Goswami (PW-43, Exh.219), Jagdishbhai Ramshibhai Solanki (PW-44, Exh.220), Jayendrasinh Mohansinh Rajput (PW-46, Exh.222), and Vimalbhai Gunvantray Jani (PW-52, Exh.243)

gave similar accounts. They stated that four unknown men came fr om the rear of the bus around 7:15 7:30 p.m., threatened the driver, fired w hen there was delay, forced passengers to sit back, looted bags including Angadiya parcels, and fled in an Indica. Some noted that one assai lant had a partially covered face and spoke in mixed Gujarati-Hindi . In cross- examination, they admitted minor variations due to darkness and fear but remained firm on the main facts, including the use of firearm s and the Page 19 of 34 R/CR.A/2291/2019 ORDER DATED: 23/01/2026 sequence of events. This consistent evidence clearly proves the occurrence of dacoity in the bus, the use of firearms, the looti ng of bags, the escape in an Indica, and the deaths of the driver and the Anga diya employee. At the same time, the learned Sessions Court correctl y held that while these witnesses are reliable about the incident, they generally do not provide a firm basis to identify each accused beyond the identification evidence already discussed. Their evidence supports the occurrence and violent conduct.

16. The witnesses Kishorsinh Pathubha Jadeja (PW-71, Exh.266) and Harpalsinh Jitubha Jadeja (PW-72, Exh.267) stated that they were travelling for personal reasons and that the incident occurred near the concerned village at about 7:15 p.m. They both stated that four unknown persons approached the driver, fired when the bus was not stopped immediately, ordered the passengers to move to the back, fired a t the Angadiya employee, and then fled in an Indica car. In cross-exam ination, both admitted that it had become dark by around 7:00 p.m. Their evidence supports the fact of the incident and its broad circumstances.

17. The prosecution examined several witnesses from Angadiya firms to show that valuables were being carried in the bus and to expla in how the loss was reported after the incident. Although this is not direct evidence of the offence, it provides important circumstantial support regarding motive and loss. Vinodbhai Gangaram Patel (PW-17, Exh.189)

stated that Ashokkumar Nai had not brought any parcel from Rajkot earlier that day, but after lunch, when Ashokkumar left Bhuj for R ajkot by the Bhuj Talaja bus, four parcels of a total value of about Rs.1.52 lakh were entrusted to him. He further stated that at about 8:00 p.m., they received a phone call from the Rajkot office informing them that between Morbi and Maliya firing had taken place in the bus, the driver and an Page 20 of 34 R/CR.A/2291/2019 ORDER DATED: 23/01/2026 Angadiya employee were shot, the bags were looted, and the assailants fled in an Indica car. In cross-examination, he clarified t hat no insurance claim was immediately filed, but internal records confirmed the loss.

Jitubhai Prahladbhai Patel (PW-18, Exh.190) similarly stated that Ashokkumar was carrying several parcels, including insured and valued consignments and cash, and that they received information around 8:00 p.m. about the dacoity, firing, and the deaths of the driver and Angadiya employee Amrutji Galabhai. In cross-examination, he confirmed the valuations based on ledger entries. Arjunbhai Chelabhai Sindhwani (PW- 19, Exh.192(A)) gave details of consignments entrusted to Amrutji Galabhai, including valuations and cash, and maintained their accuracy in cross-examination. This evidence shows that Angadiya parcels were being carried and that loss was promptly reported. The learned Sessions Court rightly relied on it only for this limited corroborative purpose.

17.1. In the same manner, Yogeshbhai Keshavji Thakkar (PW-22, Exh.196), Anilbhai Pratapbhai Thakkar (PW-23, Exh.197), Pradeepbhai Hanumanmal Bhansali (PW-24, Exh.198), Hotchand Mahadevmal (PW- 25, Exh.199), Mukeshbhai Harjivanbhai (PW-26, Exh.200), Hitenbhai Chhaganbhai (PW-27, Exh.201), Dilipbhai Naranjibhai (PW-28, Exh.202), Pareshbhai Tribhuvanbhai (PW-29, Exh.203), Nileshbhai Nartvarlal (PW-30, Exh.204), Jiteshbhai alias Jagubhai Bhanukantbhai (PW-31, Exh.205), Shantilal Hansrajbhai (PW-32, Exh.206), Jigneshbhai Shivalalbia (PW-33, Exh.207), Prafulbhai Dineshbhai Soni (PW-35, Exh.210), Sunilbhai Lalchand Shah (PW-36, Exh.211), Ashoksinh Jayantilal Soni (PW-59, Exh.253), Sanjaybhai Jatashankar Soni (PW-60, Exh.254), Kumarbhai Kantilal Solanki (PW-61, Exh.255), Mahipal Anandjibhai Tanna (PW-62, Exh.256), Prabhudashbhai Khetshibhai Soni (PW-63, Exh.257), Mukeshbhai Dhanjibhai Soni (PW-64, Exh.258), and Nileshbhai Pravinbhai Soni (PW-65, Exh.259) stated that they had sent Page 21 of 34 R/CR.A/2291/2019 ORDER DATED: 23/01/2026 parcels through Angadiya firms, explained valuations based on records, and confirmed non-delivery after the incident. In cross-examination, they accepted that they had no personal knowledge of the incident itself. T heir evidence establishes the business background and the movement of parcels, but it does not prove identity or participation. The learned Sessions Court correctly treated this evidence as background material only. Kirankumar Madhavlal Chaudhary (PW-41, Exh.216) stated that he came to collect parcels, learnt that Ashokkumar had carried t hem in the bus, and later received information about firing and looting. In cross- examination, he admitted that his knowledge was hearsay. His evidence supports the timeline of information flow after the incident.

18. The witnesses Deepakbhai Kantilal Patel (PW-66, Exh.260), Hareshbhai Popatlal Sejpara (PW-67, Exh.262), Kamleshbhai Dharalal Vaithani (PW-68, Exh.263), Sanjaybhai Labhshankarbhai Rawal (PW-69, Exh.264), Nileshbhai Vardhimal Doshi (PW-70, Exh.265), Jentibhai Jalariya (PW-73, Exh.269), and Ajaysinh Baldevsinh Gohil (PW-74, Exh.271) mainly stated that they received information about the dacoi ty from Angadiya staff, police, Ashokkumar Nai, or the bus conductor. They described receiving phone calls around 8:00 p.m. and learning about firing, looting, and injuries. In cross-examination, they admitted they had no personal knowledge of the incident. Their evidence only shows that the incident was quickly communicated and treated seriously by the Angadiya firms. This evidence does not prove identity and is only corroborative of post-incident communication.

19. Surendrasinh Amirsinh Solanki (PW-75, Exh.272) stated that around the time of the incident, one “Kaluji” took his Innova car on the pretext of hiring it for a trip to Mumbai and returned it af ter two days, stating that he had travelled through Bhuj, Gandhidham, Morbi, and Page 22 of 34 R/CR.A/2291/2019 ORDER DATED: 23/01/2026 Viramgam. He further stated that after reading a newspaper r eport of the Angadiya dacoity mentioning his car number, he realised that his vehic le had been used, and the police later seized the car. In cross- examination, he admitted that he had no written proof that Kaluji was his employee.

This evidence only shows that the vehicle became part of the investigation. By itself, it does not prove the role of the present accused unless the prosecution independently establishes Kaluji’s identity a s an accused, the use of the vehicle in the offence, and a link with the appellants. The limited reliance placed by the learned Sessions Court on this evidence is proper. Similarly, Karshanbhai Jivabhai Patel (PW-79, Exh.280) stated that on 21.08.2010 a person named Ramlakhan called him for help to go home and that he sent his driver, claiming to identify Ramlakhan in Court. However, the driver Fakirbhai Mahmadbhai (PW- 80, Exh.281) stated that he drove a Bolero, carried four persons to Gwalior, and did not know their names or know Ramlakhan. This contradiction weakens the prosecution case on this aspect. This evi dence does not safely establish involvement of Kaluji or Ramlakhan and does not form a clear chain pointing to guilt.

20. Bhikhabhai Rambhai (PW-82, Exh.286) stated that several years earlier he noticed bag-like articles in bushes near his field and informed the police, who seized the bags under a panchnama. He identified the muddamal bags in Court. Laxmanbhai Panabhai Shrimali (PW-83, Exh.294) supported the seizure and identified the panchnama. In cross- examination, both stated they did not know who placed the bags there.

This evidence proves recovery of bags from a particular place but does not show who placed them there. It remains a relevant link regar ding seizure. Many other panch witnesses, namely Dineshbhai Jivanbhai Dhamecha (PW-2, Exh.164), Bharatbhai Babubhai Chavda (PW-3, Exh.166), Lakhmanbhai Narshibhai Thoriya (PW-4, Exh.167), Page 23 of 34 R/CR.A/2291/2019 ORDER DATED: 23/01/2026 Maheshbhai Balubhai Thoriya (PW-5, Exh.169), Hushenbhai Hasambhai Chaniya (PW-6, Exh.170), Vaneshbhai Shivabhai Patel (PW-7, Exh.172), Dineshbhai Vajubhai Gadhavi (PW-8, Exh.174), Dhirajgiri Bhagwangiri (PW-9, Exh.175), Rameshbhai Nyalchand (PW-10, Exh.177), Maheshbhai Lakhmanbhai (PW-11, Exh.179), Dineshbhai Shamjibhai Dabhi (PW-12, Exh.182), Rajeshbhai Shantlal (PW-13, Exh.185), Sanjaybhai Ramanikbhai (PW-14, Exh.186), Karshanbhai Machhabhai Panchiya (PW-48, Exh.229), Dilipbhai Vashrambhai Kansagar (PW-49, Exh.231), Prakashbhai Kantilal Palaan (PW-50, Exh.232), Jagdishbhai Hargovindbhai (PW-51, Exh.234), Upendrabhai Anandjibhai Patel (PW- 53, Exh.244), Govindjibhai Keshavjibhai Kailani (PW-54, Exh.245), Hushenbhai Jumabhai Piludiya (PW-55, Exh.246), Bhupendrabhai Savjibhai Jetpariya (PW-56, Exh.247), Ghanshyamsinh Surubha Gohil (PW-57, Exh.249), Panjivanbhai Virjibhai (PW-87, Exh.420), Sureshbhai Mansukhbhai Parmar (PW-88, Exh.435), Jumasha Nursha Shahmadar (PW-89, Exh.437), Rameshbhai Gordhanbhai Pandya (PW-96, Exh.485), Hemchandbhai Shivajibhai (PW-97, Exh.486), and Amarshibhai Magnabhai Parmar (PW-98, Exh.487) were examined for various panchnamas admitted their signatures but did not support the detailed procedure and stated that they signed at the request of police wi thout full knowledge.

20.1. Gaurangbhai Jyotindrabhai Oza (PW-99, Exh.493) proved the administrative approval for filing the charge-sheet through official records (Exh.494). His evidence shows that proper procedure was followed and no illegality is shown.

20.2. The police witnesses Nanjibhai Surajbhai Ninama (PW-100, Exh.497), Jorajibhai Savjibhai Bhati (PW-101, Exh.505), Amrutlal Jivanbhai Dalsaniya (PW-102, Exh.518), Jayendrasinh Jilubha Parmar Page 24 of 34 R/CR.A/2291/2019 ORDER DATED: 23/01/2026 (PW-103, Exh.537), Jitendrasinh Madhavsinh Yadav (PW-104, Exh.543), and Mahipalsinh Vijaysinh Zhala (PW-105, Exh.546) described the investigation, arrests, recoveries, and procedural steps. Their e vidence is consistent with documentary records such as station diary entries, complaints, panchnamas, and remand papers. The learned Sessions Court examined their evidence along with the entire record and found the investigation to be broadly lawful and consistent. No serious contradiction or illegality has been shown to justify interfere nce with those findings.

20.3. In continuation to the deposition of the Police Inspector (PI) and other investigating officers involved in the probe, their testimonies provide a comprehensive account of the investigative process.

Specifically, Hareshkumar Jasvantray Bhat (PW-86, Exh.316), a key police witness, stated in his examination-in-chief that upon receiving information about the dacoity and firing via wireless around 7:30-8: 00 p.m. on 20.08.2010, he mobilized a team to set up a blockade at the Dolatpara road checkpost. He described noticing the suspicious Indica car approaching at high speed, the assailants alighting and opening fire t o evade capture, and identifying some accused, including Rustomsing and Abidkhan, in the vehicle's headlights during the chaos. He further detailed pursuing the vehicle briefly, noting the exchange of gunfire without injuries to police, and subsequently informing higher authorit ies, which led to the escalation of the investigation. In cross-exam ination, he admitted omissions in his Section 161 statement, such as not init ially recording the exact number of assailants or the full vehicle number , but maintained that these were due to the nighttime conditions and urgency, without any fabrication. This testimony, while weak on precise identification as noted earlier, corroborates the post-dacoity escape narrative and the proactive police response, aligning with documenta ry Page 25 of 34 R/CR.A/2291/2019 ORDER DATED: 23/01/2026 evidence like station diary entries (Exhs. 299, 506) and the FIR copy (Exh. 317). The learned Sessions Court rightly evaluated it as supporti ve of the pursuit fact rather than definitive proof of identity, ensuri ng no undue reliance was placed on potentially uncertain aspects.

20.4. Abhesinh Dhirubha Parmar (PW-58, Exh.250) spoke about recovery of a gun-like object during a search, but he admitted that he stayed outside, did not know what happened inside, did not identify any present accused as the person who pointed out the place, and stat ed that the person’s name was “Sonusingh”. His evidence therefore has limite d value for linking the recovery to any accused. The learned Sessions Court rightly held that while recovery as a fact is proved, the identi ty of the person pointing out the place is not established. Overall, the recove ries support the investigation steps but cannot, by themselves, fix guilt without reliable linkage evidence.

21. The FSL officer Tansukhbhai Nathalal Ashara (PW-84, Exh.296)

and the ballistic expert Hasmukhlal Thakorlal Modi (PW-85, Exh.305)

provided scientific evidence. Tansukhbhai Nathalal Ashara (PW-84, Exh.296) examined the bus and the Indica car and proved inspection reports (Exhs.297 and 298), noting recovery of two cartridge cases of different calibres from inside the bus. In cross-examination, he a ccepted that such cartridges are generally used in a service revolver, though no such revolver was recovered. His evidence supports the fact of firi ng inside the bus. Hasmukhlal Thakorlal Modi (PW-85, Exh.305) proved his earlier deposition and ballistic reports on record. These report s show that the cartridge cases and bullets were of two different calibre s, supporting the prosecution case that more than one firearm was used. Howeve r, the reports do not prove that the seized weapon was the crime weapon.

Therefore, the reasoning that this evidence as proof of firing with Page 26 of 34 R/CR.A/2291/2019 ORDER DATED: 23/01/2026 different calibres avoided drawing unsupported conclusions does find force. The non-recovery of a service revolver does not negate the occurrence when multiple witnesses have consistently spoken about firing as such there appears to be allegation of two different rather in contuation of subsequent occurence.

22. In a nutshell, while the ballistic evidence did not conclusively link the fatal bullets to the specific seized weapons, and the str icter legal requirements for certain Arms Act provisions were not satisfied, this cannot be a sole ground to refuse the use of arms, recovery of car tridges, and ammunition as corroborative to the prosecution case. Mere ac quittal on the charges under Sections 25(1-A), 25(1-B)(a), and 27(3) of the Arms Act cannot be a ground to give a clean chit on the consequential inci dents and occurrences, as the main charges under IPC Sections 395 and 396 stand on independent footing. Furthermore, the suggestion that the cartridge cases could be from a service revolver, in the absence of any solid proof or material contradiction, is no ground to disbelieve the depositions or testimony of the aforesaid witnesses regarding the use of gunshots causing deaths. This is a mere suggestion by the defense, whi ch does not shake the core prosecution evidence. As such, there appears t o be allegations of two different rather in continuation of subsequent occurrences, namely the firing inside the bus and at the checkpost du ring escape, which form part of the same transaction under Section 223 CrPC.

23. The next contention is that the FSL report is late, which is unreasonable to discard the entire evidence. The eyewitnesses have supported the case of the prosecution, and the articles have been s ent for analysis. There is no ground to throw out the case of the prosecut ion merely because of delay, as these are corroborative or supportive pieces of evidence, cannot be discarded at threshold as this has to be taken into Page 27 of 34 R/CR.A/2291/2019 ORDER DATED: 23/01/2026 account, as delays in forensic submission do not vitiate the trial in absence of proof of tampering.

24. In relation to the Arms Act charges, the evidence shows that firearms were used and that arms, including a revolver/pistol and a country-made weapon, were recovered during the investigation. The ballistic evidence also confirms the use of 7.65 mm and 8 mm/.315 ammunition. However, the learned Sessions Court correctly distinguished between proving general use or possession of arms and fixing liabil ity under specific provisions such as Section 25(1-A) and Section 27(3), which require proof of prohibited arms or contravention of Section 7 and a clear link between the weapon and the resulting death. Since the ballistic evidence did not conclusively link the fatal bullets to the specific seized weapons and the stricter legal requirements were not s atisfied, the refusal to convict under those provisions was legally sound. The acquitt al on these charges does not weaken the main prosecution case of dacoi ty with murder.

25. At this juncture, it would be apt to refer the decision of Hon’ ble Supreme Court in the case of Gulab Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, Criminal Appeal No.81 of 2021, vide order dated 09.12.2021, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, while referring and relying the cases of Gurcharan Singh Vs. State of Punjab, reported in (1963) 3 SCR 585 and State of Punjab Vs. Jugraj Singh, reported in (2002) 3 SCC 234 has observed as under:

“18 However, a three-judge Bench of this Court, in G urucharan Singh v. State of Punjab, has analysed the precedents of this Court and held that examination of a ballistic expert is not an inflexi ble rule in every case involving use of a lethal weapon. Speaking through Justice P B Gajendragadkar (as the learned Chief Justice then was), this Court held:

Page 28 of 34

R/CR.A/2291/2019 ORDER DATED: 23/01/2026 “41. It has, however, been argued that in every cas e where an accused person is charged with having committed the offence of murder by a lethal weapon, it is the duty of the pr osecution to prove by expert evidence that it was likely or at least p ossible for the injuries to have been caused with the weapon with w hich, and in the manner in which, they have been alleged to have bee n caused; and in support of this proposition, reliance has been placed on the decision of this Court in Mohinder Singh v. State [(1950) SCR 821] . In that case, this Court has held that where the prosecution case was that the accused shot the deceased with a gun, but it appeared likely that the injuries on the deceased w ere inflicted by a rifle and there was no evidence of a duly qualified expert to prove that the injuries were caused by a gun, and the nature of the injuries was also such that the shots must have been fired b y more than one person and not by one person only, and there was no evidence to show that another person also shot, and the oral ev idence was such which was not disinterested, the failure to examine an expert would be a serious infirmity in the prosecution case. It would be noticed that these observations were made in a case where t he prosecution evidence suffered from serious infirmities and in d etermining the effect of these observations, it would not be fair or reasonable to forget the facts in respect of which they came to b e made. These observations do not purport to lay down an inflexib le Rule that in every case where an accused person is charged with murder caused by a lethal weapon, the prosecution case can succee d in proving the charge only if an expert is examined. It is possibl e to imagine cases where the direct evidence is of such an unimpeachab le character and the nature of the injuries disclosed by post-mo rtem notes is so clearly consistent with the direct evidence that th e examination of a ballistic expert may not be regarded as essential. Where the direct evidence is not satisfactory or disinterested or wh ere the injuries are alleged to have been caused with a gun and they prima facie appear to have been inflicted by a rifle, undoubted ly the apparent inconsistency can be cured or the oral evidence can be corroborated by leading the evidence of a ballistic expert. In what cases the examination of a ballistic expert is essential for the proof of the prosecution case, must naturally depend upon the ci rcumstances of each case. Therefore, we do not think that Mr Purus hottam is right in contending as a general proposition that in ever y case where a Page 29 of 34 R/CR.A/2291/2019 ORDER DATED: 23/01/2026 firearm is alleged to have been used by an accused person, in addition to the direct evidence, prosecution must l ead the evidence of a ballistic expert, however good the direct evid ence may be and though on the record there may be no reason to doub t the said direct evidence.”

19 Similarly, a two-judge Bench of this Court in Sta te of Punjab v.

Jugraj Singh6 had noticed that surrounding circumst ances in the prosecution case are sufficient to prove a death caused by a lethal weapon, without a ballistic examination of the recovered we apon. The Court, speaking through Justice R P Sethi, had noted:

“18. In the instant case the investigating officer has categorically stated that guns seized were not in a working condi tion and he, in his discretion, found that no purpose would be served by sending the same to the ballistic expert for his opinion. No fu rther question was put to the investigating officer in cross-examination to find out whether despite the guns being defective the fire p in was in order or not. In the presence of convincing evidence of two eyewitnesses and other attending circumstances we do not find that t he non- examination of the expert in this case has, in any way, affected the creditworthiness of the version put forth by the eyewitnesses.”

26. The defence argued that because the bus conductor made an immediate call to the “100 number”, that call should be treated as the first information under Section 154 Cr.P.C., and therefore the later compla int should be treated only as a statement under Section 162 Cr.P.C. However, the record does not show that the control-room call contained suffici ent details to clearly describe the offence or to set the crimi nal law in motion with a definite version. It is also not shown that the police s tarted the investigation solely on the basis of that call. The formal com plaint was recorded later in a lawful manner and was correctly treated as the FIR.

27. With regard to the charge of criminal conspiracy under Section 120B IPC, the learned Sessions Court correctly held that the essent ial Page 30 of 34 R/CR.A/2291/2019 ORDER DATED: 23/01/2026 requirement of an agreement between two or more persons to commit an illegal act is not proved. There is no direct or strong circumstantial evidence on record to establish such an agreement. The prosecution evidence shows participation in the dacoity and the related murders, but it does not independently and satisfactorily prove a prior meeting of m inds amounting to conspiracy. The acquittal under Section 120B therefore does not require interference and does not affect the validity of the remaining convictions.

28. Consequently, the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that when the Bhuj Talaja route bus reached the place of occurrenc e, the accused, who were travelling as passengers and were armed with firearms, committed dacoity, caused the deaths of the driver Baldev Jashubha and the Angadiya employee Amrutji Galabhai, and looted the passengers and Angadiya parcels, after which they escaped in an Indica car. The involvement of Ravindrasingh @ Bablu, Abidkhan Ijmatkhan, Rupesh, and Alkesh @ Akhilesh is established mainly through reli able identification evidence and supporting circumstances. At the same time, the learned Sessions Court rightly concluded that the case against t he other accused (Nos.2 to 4 and 6 to 9, as noted) was not proved to the required standard by the prosecution which culminated in their acquittal which does not warrant any interference. In nutshell, the balanced approach of convicting where the evidence is clear and acquitting w here doubt remains shows proper judicial reasoning and gives no reason for any interference.

29. In conclusion, after carefully examining all the evidence before the learned Sessions Court, it is clear that the prosecution has proved, by a complete chain of circumstances, the guilt of the convicted appell ants beyond reasonable doubt, and it is also clear that there is not suff icient Page 31 of 34 R/CR.A/2291/2019 ORDER DATED: 23/01/2026 proof against the respondents who have been acquitted. The incident began on 20.08.2010 at about 7:00 p.m. in the Bhuj-Talaja route bus, where 4 armed persons, including the appellants, boarded as passenger s, showed firearms, and when resistance was offered, fired upon the driver Baldev Jashubha and Angadiya employee Amrutji Galabhai, thereafter looted valuables including Angadiya parcels worth lakhs, and escaped i n an Indica car, and while escaping they also fired at a poli ce checkpost; all these acts form one continuous incident and amount to dacoity with murder under Sections 395 and 396 IPC. This version is supported by the evidence of key witnesses, including the bus conductor Ranvijaysinh Jinakubha Godhal (PW-92), who described the sequence and identified the appellants Abidkhan, Alkesh, and Rupesh in the identification parades; the complainant Ashokkumar Gopaldas Nai (PW-47), whose version about firing and looting broadly supports the prosecution case even though he not thoroughly supported the case of the prosecution, but other passengers eyewitnesses such as PW-15, PW-16, PW-21, PW-34, PW-71, PW-72, whose depositions about the violent incident are consistent and have not been shaken in cross-examination, and minor differences are natural due to fear, confusion, and darkness. The prosecution case is further supported by medical evidence of Dr. Sa diq Husain Gulam Mahmud Momin (PW-1), confirming homicidal deaths due to gunshot injuries and indicating different calibers, and by s cientific evidence of FSL experts (PW-84, PW-85) showing use of multiple firearms and recovery of cartridges; therefore, the defence arguments about delay, ballistic mismatch, or procedural lapses do not affect the core reliable evidence, and the position is supported by the principle s stated in decisions such as Tahir Mohammad v. Kamad Girendr a Singh on TIP and State of Maharashtra v. Joseph Mingel Koli in dacoity matters.

Page 32 of 34

R/CR.A/2291/2019 ORDER DATED: 23/01/2026 30. Furthermore, the identification parades were conducted with proper safeguards by Executive Magistrates (PW-93, PW-94) and are supported by panch evidence, and these proceedings clearly connect the appellant s Rustomsing @ Bablu, Abidkhan, Alkesh @ Akhilesh, and Rupendra @ Rupesh with the offence, making their involvement proved. However, as regards the acquitted accused (Nos. 2-4, 6-9), the chain of evidenc e is incomplete because necessary links are missing, and therefore the learned Sessions Court was justified in acquitting them. The investigation is supported by police witnesses (PW-100 to PW-105) and panchnamas, and there is no material to show tampering, malice, or false implication;

similarly, the defences such as treating the conductor’s call as the real FIR or alleging personal grudge are not supported by any proof. The acquittal under Section 120B IPC and under certain Arms Act provisions is because conspiracy and strict weapon-to-death linkage were not proved, but this does not weaken the main conviction under Sections 395 and 396 IPC, and mere suggestions of ballistic issues, such as use of a service revolver, are only assumptions and cannot outweigh trustworthy eyewitness evidence about firearm use, as held in State of U.P. v. Sukhpal Singh. Overall, the trial court’s appreciation of evidence is balanced, reasoned, and not perverse, and therefore does not require interference.

31. Thus, the appeals against conviction, namely Criminal Appeal Nos.

2291 of 2019, 6 of 2020,240 of 2020, and 241 of 2020, have no merit because the findings in the impugned judgment are based on reliable evidence discussed above and deserve to be upheld considering the seriousness of the offence and public safety. Likewise, the State ’s appeal against acquittal, Criminal Appeal No. 326 of 2020, also fails bec ause there are no sufficient grounds to interfere with the acquittal, and the trial court’s decision to acquit the said respondents is reasoned and calls for no interference.

Page 33 of 34

R/CR.A/2291/2019 ORDER DATED: 23/01/2026 32. In view of the forgoing reasons, the conviction appeals being Criminal Appeal Nos. 2291 of 2019, 6 of 2020, 240 of 2020, and 241 of 2020 with Criminal Misc.Application (for suspension of sentence) No. 1 of 2025 in Criminal Appeal No. 241 of 2020 are dismissed. The acquitt al appeal being Criminal Appeal No. 326 of 2020 is also dismissed. Ba il bonds, if any, stands canceled. The records be transmitted to the l earned Sessions Court forthwith.

(ILESH J. VORA,J)

(R. T. VACHHANI, J)

MVP

Page 34 of 34

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

Digitally signed by: MITESH VIJAYBHAI PANCHAL(HCD0065), ENGLISH STENOGRAPHER GRADE TWO CLASS TWO, at High Court of Gujarat on 23/01/2026 16:01:53