Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Sundar Aavatram Lavlani on 19 July, 2025
Author: Nikhil S. Kariel
Bench: Nikhil S. Kariel
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/370/2004 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/07/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 370 of 2004
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIKHIL S. KARIEL
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. M. RAVAL
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
SUNDAR AAVATRAM LAVLANI & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR MEET THAKKAR ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the
Appellant(s) No. 1
MS. SHAILI A KAPADIA(3453) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No.
1,2,3,4
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIKHIL S. KARIEL
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. M. RAVAL
Date : 19/07/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIKHIL S. KARIEL)
1. Heard Ld. Advocate Mr. Meet Thakkar, Additional
Public Prosecutor and Ms. Shaili Kapadia for the
Opponents/ Respondents – Org. Accused.
Page 1 of 8
Uploaded by MR.MAHENDRA MOHANBHAI PUROHIT(HCD0074) on Wed Jul 23 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 23 22:43:14 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/370/2004 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/07/2025
undefined
2. By way of the present Appeal under Section 378(1)(2)
of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, the Appellant – State
has assailed the judgment and order dated 03.05.2003
passed by the Ld. Additional Sessions Judge, Vadodara, in
Sessions Case No. 253 of 2002, whereby, the Opponents/
Respondents – Org. Accused have been acquitted for the
offence punishable under Section 302, 323 and 114 of the
Indian Penal Code and Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act
3. Briefly stated the case of the prosecution being that.,
3.1 The Complainant – first informant namely Yusuf Ali
Amir Ali had registered a complaint with Vadodara City
Police Station being CR No. I- 149/2002 interalia, alleging
that on the said date, while he and his brother-in-law had
gone to the Kamal Bakery for buying some eatables and
were returning back, i.e., during the time of some
communal riots, an Auto Rickshaw bearing Registration No.
GJ- 6 W 1281 had come from behind and the Respondents
had got down from the Auto Rickshaw with swords and Iron
pipes and starting assaulting the first informant and the
deceased from behind. The deceased had suffered injuries
on his head etc, whereas, the first informant, upon being
assaulted, had ran away from the place and when he had
seen a police van, he had returned back with the Van where
the deceased was lying in a injured state. The investigating
officer had filed chargesheet and thereafter, the case had
been committed to the Sessions Court and whereas, the
charges had been framed. It appears that the prosecution
had examined the first informant, the police officials who
Page 2 of 8
Uploaded by MR.MAHENDRA MOHANBHAI PUROHIT(HCD0074) on Wed Jul 23 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 23 22:43:14 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/370/2004 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/07/2025
undefined
are on duty in the Van, the police officials who had
intercepted the Auto Rickshaw in question in which the
Respondents- Org. Accused were stated to be travelled, the
panchs, the doctors as well as the Investigating Officer.
Upon conclusion of the trial, the Ld. Additional Sessions
Judge vide decision refer to hereinabove dated 03.05.2003
had acquitted the Respondents- Org. Accused, against
which the State has approached this Court.
4. Ld. Additional Public Prosecutor, Mr Meet M. Thakkar
would take this Court through the deposition of the
witnesses in detail and would try to assail the finding of the
Ld. Court below. The Ld. Additional Public Prosecutor
submits that since, the first informant had given the
number of Auto Rickshaw in the FIR itself, and whereas,
later on , the Auto Rickshaw had been intercepted and
seized by the Police Officials, in which the weapons were
recovered and whereas, it is submitted that in such
circumstances, on account of minor inconsistency in the
deposition, the Ld. Sessions Court ought not have acquitted
the Respondent – Org. Accused.
5. On the other hand, the present Appeal is vehemently
opposed by the learned Advocate Ms. S. A. Kapadia for the
respondent-original accused and whereas learned Advocate
would submit that the minor inconsistency which is
admitted to be stated by the learned Additional Public
Prosecutor are as such, inconsistency which reveals that
the chain of evidence could not be completed. Learned
Advocate would further point out that the complainant,
Page 3 of 8
Uploaded by MR.MAHENDRA MOHANBHAI PUROHIT(HCD0074) on Wed Jul 23 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 23 22:43:14 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/370/2004 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/07/2025
undefined
panch witnesses etc., had turned hostile during the trial.
Learned Advocate would further submit that while there is a
TI parade which is alleged to have been conducted yet the
panch witness of the TI parade have also rescinded from
their statement. Learned Advocate would submit that
merely because number of Auto Rickshaw had been given in
the FIR, the same would not automatically meant that the
accused were in fact involved in the offence. As such learned
Advocate would vehemently point out that from the FIR as
well as deposition of the first informant, it is clear that the
first informant as well as the deceased had been assaulted
from behind and the first informant has clearly stated that
upon the assault, he had run away from the place,
therefore, there was no possibility of the first informant
having noticed even the vehicle in which the assailants had
come and it is too far probable to assume that the first
informant during the assault could notice the vehicle as well
as its registration number. Learned Advocate further
submits that the Ld. Sessions Court has not committed any
error, whatsoever, in acquitting the present Respondents of
the charges leveled against them.
6. Heard Ld. Advocate for the respective parties and
perused the record in detail. We have also gone through the
deposition of the relevant witnesses and have studied the
impugned decision in detail. We find that the Ld. Session
Court after completion of the trial, had framed two
questions, namely whether the prosecution proves that the
accused at the time of the incident had come with the
common intention and having violated the notification of the
Page 4 of 8
Uploaded by MR.MAHENDRA MOHANBHAI PUROHIT(HCD0074) on Wed Jul 23 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 23 22:43:14 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/370/2004 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/07/2025
undefined
Police Commissioner against carrying grievous weapon and
had assaulted the first informant and the deceased with
swords and iron pipes and caused the injury to the first
informant and the death of the deceased and what would be
the order.
7. The Ld. Sessions Court has in detailed examined the
statement of the deposition of the first informant and has
noticed that the first informant has stated that, he has not
identified the accused at the time of the incident nor does
he identify the weapon with which he was assaulted nor
does he identify the accused in the TI Parade. The Ld.
Sessions Court also notes that as such, the said first
informant has categorically denied that the TI Parade had
ever taken place. Ld. Sessions Court has also noted that the
said witness, had rescinded from the allegations which he
had made in the First Information Report and whereas, the
Ld. Sessions Court rightly notes that upon being assaulted
from behind, it is but natural that the first informant could
not have time to notice the accused. The Ld. Sessions Court
had also gone in detail with regard to the deposition of the
first panchas of the TI Parade as well as the panchas
present during the interception and seizure of the Auto
Rickshaw as well as the recovery of the weapons concerned
and whereas, the Ld. Sessions Court has noted that all the
panchas have turned hostile. That is to say that none of
them have supported the case of the prosecution.
8. Ld. Sessions Court has also dealt with the deposition
of the Police Official who were present in the Van who had
Page 5 of 8
Uploaded by MR.MAHENDRA MOHANBHAI PUROHIT(HCD0074) on Wed Jul 23 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 23 22:43:14 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/370/2004 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/07/2025
undefined
been first approach by the first informant and notes that the
first informant at the relevant point of time did not gave the
name of the accused and the deposition of the officials
present in Van namely Baldevsinh Chatursinh Chavda, who
has deposed that the first informant has not given the
number of the Auto Rickshaw at that time. It also transpires
that as far as the Police Officials who had intercepted the
Auto Rickshaw concerned, the Ld. Sessions Court notes
that while the first informant does not appear to have given
the registration number of the vehicle in question and
whereas, while the incident stated to have happened at
around 3.30 PM, the Vehicle had been intercepted at about
8.30 PM and the officials who intercepted the Auto
Rickshaw have stated that the Auto Rickshaw was
intercepted upon instructions of Higher Officials. The Ld.
Sessions Court observes that merely because Auto
Rickshaw was intercepted and whereas, the Intercepting
officials had also not deposed that the Auto Rickshaw was
caught red handed at the site of the incident, therefore, the
persons arrayed as the accused, more particularly the
owner or the Driver of the Auto Rickshaw Auto Rickshaw
could not be stated to have been involved in the incident.
9. Ld. Sessions Court also further observed that the
intercepting officer did not depose that the owner of the
Auto Rickshaw i.e. Accused No. 1 – Respondent No. 1
herein, could have been stated to have given the names of
the other accused voluntarily. Ld. Sessions Court also refers
to the deposition of the treating Doctor, and whereas, the
Ld. Sessions Court notes that the treating Doctor does not
Page 6 of 8
Uploaded by MR.MAHENDRA MOHANBHAI PUROHIT(HCD0074) on Wed Jul 23 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 23 22:43:14 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/370/2004 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/07/2025
undefined
depose anything in favour of the prosecution. Having
analyzed the evidence placed before it, the Ld. Sessions
Court had thereafter, come to the conclusion that the
prosecution did not proved its case beyond reasonable
doubts that the accused were guilty of charge framed
against them and that thereafter, acquitted them.
10. At this stage, we would refer the recent decision of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mallappa and others
Vs. State of Karnataka reported in 2024 (3) SCC 544,
wherein, following portion of the decision be relevant herein
and the same is quoted herein for benefit.
“7. It is well settled that:
7.1. While dealing with an appeal against acquittal, the
reasons which had weighed with the trial court in acquitting
the accused must be dealt with, in case the appellate court
is of the view that the acquittal rendered by the trial court
deserves to be upturned (see Vijay Mohan Singhv. State of
Karnataka5, Anwar Ali v. State of H.P.6)7.2. With an order of acquittal by the trial court,the normal
presumption of innocence in a criminal matter gets
reinforced (see Atley v.State of U.P.7)7.3. If two views are possible from the evidence on record,
the appellate court must be extremely slow in interfering
with the appeal against acquittal (see Sambasivan v. State
of Kerala)”
Page 7 of 8
Uploaded by MR.MAHENDRA MOHANBHAI PUROHIT(HCD0074) on Wed Jul 23 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 23 22:43:14 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/370/2004 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/07/2025
undefined
11. Considering the impugned judgment from the
perspective of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court to this Court, it would appear that as such, there are
no two views possible in the present case, since there is no
evidence which had been led before the Sessions Court by
the prosecution, whereby, the prosecution could remotely
established that the accused were guilty of the charges
leveled against them. This Court also does not find that the
decision of the Ld. Appellant Court suffers from any
illegality, perversity or error in law.
12. This Court has also considered the fact that incident
taken placed on the 01.05.2002 and whereas, the decision
impugned is dated 03.05.2003 and whereas, we taking up
the Appeal after a period of 22 years.
13. In view of the overall facts and circumstances,
narrated herein above, and in view of the fact that more
than two decades have passed after the impugned order,
this Court not find any infirmity in the order passed by the
Ld. Sessions Court is not inclined to interfere in the Appeal.
Hence, the same is disposed of as rejected.
(NIKHIL S. KARIEL,J)
(P. M. RAVAL, J)
MMP
Page 8 of 8
Uploaded by MR.MAHENDRA MOHANBHAI PUROHIT(HCD0074) on Wed Jul 23 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 23 22:43:14 IST 2025
