Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Karsan Meraman on 27 March, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1376/1999 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/03/2026
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1376 of 1999
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.N.RAY
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
KARSAN MERAMAN & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR ROHAN RAVAL, APP for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR MM TIRMIZI(1117) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.N.RAY
Date : 27/03/2026
JUDGMENT
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR)
1. This appeal is directed under Section 378 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as “the Code” for
short) against the judgment and order of acquittal dated
27.09.1999 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge,
Jamnagar, in Sessions Case No.53/1996, whereby the learned
Sessions Court acquitted the respondents for the offence
punishable under Sections 504, 323, 324, 302 and 114 of the
Indian Penal Code, 1860 read with Section 135 of the Bombay
Police Act.
Page 1 of 13
Uploaded by ALI ISTAYAK(HC01093) on Wed Apr 01 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 01 21:35:20 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1376/1999 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/03/2026
undefined
2. The following noteworthy facts emerge from the record of
the appeal:
2.1 On 13.01.1996, Naga Khima of village Chhapar informed the
police at Irwin Hospital, Jamnagar that on 12.01.1996, his
brother Arjan Khima had allegedly fallen from a bullock cart
while filling fodder in the field and sustained head injuries. Arjan
was first taken to Khambhalia Government Hospital and
thereafter shifted to Irwin Hospital, Jamnagar for further
treatment. On the basis of the said information, Janvajog Entry
No.2/96 was recorded at Kalyanpur Police Station and
investigation was entrusted to Head Constable Mamad Nurma.
During the investigation, it was revealed that Arjan had not
fallen from the cart but had sustained injuries during a quarrel.
Inquiry further disclosed that Arjan had developed illicit
relations with his sister-in-law, Heraben, which had led to
tension and hostility between him and his in-laws. It is the case
of the prosecution that on 12.01.1996, Arjan had a quarrel with
his brother-in-law, Naga Karshan, and later in the evening,
Karshan Meraman, Naga Karshan and Kala Karshan came to his
house and assaulted him with an iron pipe and wooden stick,
causing injuries on his back, eye and head. Despite intervention
by family members, the accused continued the assault and
thereafter left the place. Arjan was initially treated at
Khambhalia Hospital and thereafter shifted to Irwin Hospital,
Jamnagar, and later to Rajkot, where he succumbed to his
injuries on 13.01.1996 during treatment at Prabhat Hospital.
Page 2 of 13
Uploaded by ALI ISTAYAK(HC01093) on Wed Apr 01 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 01 21:35:20 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1376/1999 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/03/2026
undefined
2.2 Thereafter, a complaint being I-C.R. No.3 of 1996 came to
be registered at Kalyanpur Police Station. During investigation,
the inquest panchnama and scene of offence panchnama were
prepared, statements of witnesses were recorded, and another
offence being I-C.R. No.8 of 1996 under Sections 324 and 325 of
the Indian Penal Code was also registered. On 19.01.1996, the
accused persons were apprehended and, during interrogation,
led to the recovery of an iron pipe, a wooden stick and blood-
stained clothes. The postmortem report revealed that Arjan died
due to head injury resulting in hemorrhage. After completion of
investigation, charge-sheet came to be filed on 25.03.1996. At
the conclusion of the trial, the learned trial Court acquitted the
respondents – accused of the offences punishable under Sections
504, 323, 324, 302 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code read with
Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act, vide judgment and order
dated 27.09.1999 passed in Sessions Case No.53 of 1996.
2.3 Being aggrieved by the same, the appellant – State
preferred present appeal under Section 378 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973.
3. Heard learned advocates for the respective parties.
4. Mr. Rohan Raval, learned APP, has submitted that the
learned trial Court committed an error in acquitting the
respondents – accused and failed to properly appreciate the
evidence produced on record, though the prosecution had proved
its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. It is
further argued that the learned Sessions Judge ought to have
Page 3 of 13
Uploaded by ALI ISTAYAK(HC01093) on Wed Apr 01 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 01 21:35:20 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1376/1999 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/03/2026
undefined
properly considered the evidence of the eye-witness, Jiva Khima,
as well as the injured witness, whose testimony corroborated the
version of the prosecution case and the complaint. It is further
submitted that the learned Sessions Judge ought to have
considered the evidence of Ajaiben, wife of the deceased, who
had witnessed the accused persons assaulting her husband and
was an eye-witness to the incident. The learned Judge also ought
to have considered that she had deposed against accused No.1,
who is her father, and accused Nos.2 and 3, who are her
brothers, and therefore there was no reason for her to falsely
implicate them in the offence. It is submitted that deceased
Arjan had illicit relations with Heraben, widow of his brother
Jesa, which was strongly disliked by the accused persons. Since
the deceased intended to marry Heraben, the incident in
question took place. It is further alleged that accused Karshan
Meraman inflicted a blow with an iron pipe, while accused Kara
Karshan inflicted blows with a wooden stick upon the deceased.
It is further submitted that the learned Sessions Judge failed to
properly appreciate the evidence of the doctor examined below
Exhibit 11, who had conducted the postmortem, and thereby the
factum of death also stood duly proved. The evidence of Dr.
Vasavada below Exhibit 44 and Dr. Singhal below Exhibit 42
also clearly corroborates the case of the prosecution and the
occurrence of the incident. Therefore, the learned APP submitted
that the present appeal may kindly be allowed, as prayed for.
6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents – accused
have supported the impugned judgment and order and
contended that the learned trial Court has properly appreciated
Page 4 of 13
Uploaded by ALI ISTAYAK(HC01093) on Wed Apr 01 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 01 21:35:20 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1376/1999 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/03/2026
undefined
the evidence and prosecution has failed to prove the case against
the accused. Prosecution is duty bound to prove the case against
the accused persons beyond all reasonable doubt. Therefore,
learned counsel for the respondents have submitted that,
present appeal being meritless, deserves to be dismissed.
7. Except above, no other or further submissions, contentions
and grounds have been made/raised by both the sides.
8. Scope and interference by the appellate Court in acquittal
appeal is very limited. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has discussed
the scope and interference in acquittal appeal in the case of
Sheo Swarup v. King Emperor, AIR 1934 PC 227 and held as
under:-
“While dealing with an appeal against acquittal, the High
Court should and will always give proper weight and
consideration to such matters as-
(1) the views of the trial Judge as to the credibility of the
witnesses;
(2) the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused,
a presumption certainly not weakened by the fact that he
has been acquitted at his trial;
(3) the right of the accused to the benefit of any doubt;
and
the slowness of an appellate court in disturbing a finding of
fact arrived at by a Judge who had the advantage of seeing
the witnesses.”
8.1 Further, considering the law laid down in the case of Babu
Sahebagouda Rudragoudar v. State of Karnataka, 2024 SCC
OnLine SC 561, every criminal trial starts with general
presumption and one of the cardinal principle of criminal
jurisprudence is that, there is a presumption of innocence in
Page 5 of 13
Uploaded by ALI ISTAYAK(HC01093) on Wed Apr 01 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 01 21:35:20 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1376/1999 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/03/2026
undefined
favour of the accused, unless proven guilty. Burden of proving
the case of the prosecution always rests on the shoulder of the
prosecution. As a consequence, the onus on the prosecution
becomes more burdensome as there is a double presumption of
innocence, which gathers stregnth before the appellate Court.
8.2. It would be further apposite to refer the decision of the
Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Jafarudheen v. State of Kerala,
(2022) 8 SCC 440:
“While dealing with an appeal against acquittal by
invoking Section 378 CrPC, the appellate court has to
consider whether the trial court’s view can be termed as
a possible one, particularly when evidence on record
has been analysed. The reason is that an order of
acquittal adds up to the presumption of innocence in
favour of the accused. Thus, the appellate court has to
be relatively slow in reversing the order of the trial court
rendering acquittal. Therefore, the presumption in
favour of the accused does not get weakened but only
strengthened. Such a double presumption that ensures
in favour of the accused has to be disturbed only by
thorough scrutiny on the accepted legal parameters.”
9. Having heard the learned counsel for both sides and
having gone through the evidence produced on record, it appears
that, in order to prove its case, the prosecution examined 19
witnesses and produced 24 documentary pieces of evidence on
record. The learned Sessions Judge considered the evidence of
Dr. Makwana, examined below Exhibit 11, who conducted the
postmortem, as well as the evidence of Dr. Singhal, examined
Page 6 of 13
Uploaded by ALI ISTAYAK(HC01093) on Wed Apr 01 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 01 21:35:20 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1376/1999 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/03/2026
undefined
below Exhibit 42, who carried out the CT scan, and Dr.
Vasavada, examined below Exhibit 44, before whom the
deceased was first brought for treatment at Irwin Hospital on
12.01.1996 at about 1:45 a.m. Thereafter, the deceased was
referred to a higher centre for further treatment, and the relevant
entries were made in the case papers.
9.1 It appears that on 13.01.1996, a CT scan came to be
conducted when the deceased was conscious and able to
understand the facts. In order to prove the factum of death, the
prosecution relied upon the evidence of Dr. Vasavada at Exhibit
44. However, in his cross-examination, the doctor stated, with
reference to Exhibit 45, that the deceased had given a history
that he sustained injuries due to falling from a cart. He further
stated that prior to being brought to Irwin Hospital, the deceased
had received treatment at Khambhalia Hospital. However, none
of the doctors who had treated the deceased at the earlier point
of time at Khambhalia Hospital were examined, nor was any
such evidence collected during the investigation.
9.2 The injuries sustained by the deceased and the fact that he
died due to head injuries are not in dispute. However, in the
postmortem report produced at Exhibit 13, though injury No.1
refers to internal head injury, it is clearly opined that injury
Nos.1 and 2 were not sufficient in the ordinary course of nature
to cause death. It is an admitted fact that both the injuries,
though correlated, were not sufficient in the ordinary course of
nature to cause death. However, the head injury is also not in
dispute. Relying upon the said evidence, the learned Sessions
Page 7 of 13
Uploaded by ALI ISTAYAK(HC01093) on Wed Apr 01 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 01 21:35:20 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1376/1999 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/03/2026
undefined
Judge came to the conclusion that the deceased had not died a
homicidal death.
9.3 In a prosecution under Section 302 of the Indian Penal
Code involving homicidal death, the prosecution is required to
prove whether the injuries sustained by the deceased were
homicidal, accidental, suicidal or natural. In the present case,
considering the history given by the deceased before the doctors
coupled with the opinion of the doctor who conducted the
postmortem, it appears that the prosecution failed to prove the
factum of homicidal death. Hence, the learned Sessions Judge
has rightly answered Issue No.1 by holding that the deceased
had not died a homicidal death.
9.4 Now, coming to the question as to whether the accused
persons committed the offence and assaulted the deceased, if the
entire evidence on record is considered, the prosecution case is
based on the allegation that the deceased intended to marry his
widowed sister-in-law, Heraben, and due to resentment arising
from the said relationship, the accused persons, who were the
father-in-law and brothers-in-law of the deceased, assaulted
him.
9.5. As per the case of the prosecution, Ajaiben, examined as
Prosecution Witness No.2, was the wife of the deceased and the
daughter and sister of accused Nos.1 and 2 respectively. Though
the prosecution projected her as an eye-witness to the incident,
in her cross-examination it emerged that she was only a chance
witness and had no personal knowledge about the incident. Her
Page 8 of 13
Uploaded by ALI ISTAYAK(HC01093) on Wed Apr 01 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 01 21:35:20 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1376/1999 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/03/2026
undefined
evidence cannot be accepted as reliable, as she had neither
actually witnessed the incident nor seen the accused persons
assaulting the deceased. Even her presence at the place of
occurrence has been doubted by the learned Sessions Judge.
9.6 It appears that, in the absence of evidence, the prosecution
did not examine the doctors before whom the deceased was
initially taken for treatment at Jamkhambhalia, namely Dr.
Karangi and Dr. Dangar. Not only that, but it also appears from
the record that the accused persons had also sustained injuries,
and in this regard, another offence being I-C.R. No.8 of 1996
under Sections 324 and 325 came to be registered. However, the
prosecution failed to explain the injuries sustained by the
accused persons, and no material was brought on record to
show under what circumstances they had suffered such injuries.
Further, upon scanning the evidence, it appears that Heraben,
with whom the deceased allegedly had an affair, had also
committed suicide, as per the case of the prosecution. However,
no evidence in this regard has been produced on record.
9.7. Further, all the witnesses examined by the prosecution are
interested witnesses belonging to the same family, and no
independent or neutral witness has been examined. The
complaint was also filed belatedly. The evidence of Ajaiben,
examined at Exhibit 28, was found to be unreliable, as she was
inside the house at the relevant time and, in her cross-
examination, she admitted that she had not seen the incident.
The document produced below Exhibit 32, being the history
Page 9 of 13
Uploaded by ALI ISTAYAK(HC01093) on Wed Apr 01 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 01 21:35:20 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1376/1999 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/03/2026
undefined
given by the brother of the deceased, states that the deceased
himself had stated that he had fallen from the cart and
sustained injuries. The same history was also given before the
doctor, who confirmed the said version. The said version is
corroborated by Entry No.2/96 produced at Exhibit 37. It further
appears from the evidence that when the said entry was made,
the deceased was conscious and had narrated the facts
regarding the incident. Coupled with the aforesaid facts, if the
evidence of the remaining witnesses is considered, it appears
that the police constable who initially investigated Entry No.2/96
subsequently came to know about the alleged incident,
thereafter the complaint produced at Mark-A came to be
registered. However, the contents of the said complaint do not
appear to be true. Prima facie, Entry No.2/96 produced at
Exhibit 37, supported by the evidence of the brother of the
deceased and the medical evidence produced at Exhibit 32,
discloses a different version of the incident than the one stated
in the complaint produced at Mark-A.
9.8. Hence, prima facie, it appears that the deceased had fallen
from the cart and sustained injuries. If the second version of the
prosecution case, as reflected in the complaint at Mark-A, is
considered, the same remains uncorroborated, as no reliable
evidence has been produced on record in support thereof. The
said version is primarily based on the evidence of Ajaiben;
however, in her cross-examination, she admitted that she had no
personal knowledge of the incident.
Page 10 of 13
Uploaded by ALI ISTAYAK(HC01093) on Wed Apr 01 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 01 21:35:20 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1376/1999 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/03/2026
undefined
9.9 Further, nothing is stated in the complaint to show that
either Radhaben or Ajaiben was present at the time of the
incident. Though, as per the complaint produced at Mark-A,
both Radhaben and Ajaiben are shown as eye-witnesses, neither
of them supported the said version. In their cross-examinations,
both the witnesses admitted that they had not actually seen the
incident. Hence, both the witnesses cannot be treated as eye-
witnesses and they do not support the case of the prosecution.
9.10 In view of the above, Prima facie, it appears that the
learned Sessions Judge has rightly considered the fact that there
are material variations in the testimonies of the witnesses and
glaring contradictions between the medical evidence and the oral
evidence. Two different versions emerge from the record and, in
the absence of any clear and consistent case put forward by the
prosecution, this Court is of the considered view that the
prosecution has come out with two different stories, neither of
which has been proved. Therefore, this Court is of the considered
view that the prosecution has withheld material evidence,
suppressed material witnesses and failed to disclose the true
genesis of the incident. If the prosecution case was that, due to
the illicit relationship of the deceased with Heraben, the accused
persons assaulted him out of resentment, then the prosecution
was required to prove the said case beyond reasonable doubt.
The prosecution must stand on its own legs and cannot take
advantage of the defence version or set up a different case at a
later stage to secure conviction.
Page 11 of 13
Uploaded by ALI ISTAYAK(HC01093) on Wed Apr 01 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 01 21:35:20 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1376/1999 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/03/2026
undefined
9.11 Hence, the very genesis of the prosecution case is doubtful,
including whether the deceased died due to injuries caused by
the accused persons and whether his death was homicidal in
nature. On the other hand, the alternate version emerging from
the record, namely that the deceased had fallen from the cart
and sustained head injuries, creates a serious doubt regarding
the prosecution case. Therefore, the uncorroborated version of
the prosecution witnesses cannot be relied upon. The
complainant and the witnesses examined by the prosecution are
not found to be reliable and, on the basis of such evidence,
conviction cannot be recorded. To that extent, the learned
Sessions Judge has not committed any error. In this regard,
reference is required to be made to Bhagirath v. State of
Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1976 SC 975 and Hari Dev Sharma v.
State (Delhi Administration), AIR 1976 SC1489, wherein it
has been held that if the prosecution fails to prove the vital part
of its case and the evidence tendered by the prosecution creates
reasonable doubt, such doubt must always be resolved in favour
of the accused.
9.12 The settled principle of criminal jurisprudence is that the
prosecution must stand on its own legs and prove the charge
beyond reasonable doubt. The investigating agency cannot pick
and choose only such evidence as may help in securing
conviction. In this regard, reference is also required to be made
to Gulam Mehmood A. Maliek v. State of Gujarat, AIR 1980
1558 (Supreme) wherein it has been held that if two views are
possible from the evidence on record, the view favourable to the
accused is required to be accepted.
Page 12 of 13
Uploaded by ALI ISTAYAK(HC01093) on Wed Apr 01 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 01 21:35:20 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1376/1999 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/03/2026
undefined
10. In view of the above and in backdrop of the evidence
adduced/produced by the prosecution, material contradictions
which goes to the root of the case of the prosecution are noticed
by the Sessions Court and as the prosecution failed to prove the
case against the accused beyond all reasonable doubts, learned
Sessions Court has not committed any error in acquitting the
accused.
11. Accordingly, present appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.
The judgment and order of acquittal passed by learned
Additional Sessions Judge, Jamnagar, stands confirmed. Bail
bond, if any, given by respondents- accused stands discharged.
Record and proceedings be sent back to the concerned trial
Court forthwith.
(HASMUKH D. SUTHAR,J)
(D.N.RAY,J)
ALI
Page 13 of 13
Uploaded by ALI ISTAYAK(HC01093) on Wed Apr 01 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 01 21:35:20 IST 2026
