The Gujarat High Court has reaffirmed the high threshold for overturning acquittals in criminal cases, emphasizing that appellate courts must not substitute their own view unless the trial court’s conclusion is unreasonable. This judgment reinforces the foundational principle that the burden of proof rests squarely on the prosecution, and mere possibility of guilt is insufficient to reverse an acquittal.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The case arose from the alleged murder of Dolatsinh on or about 1 December 1993 near Vasedi village, Gujarat. The prosecution alleged that the accused, members of a family with prior enmity toward the victim’s family, conspired to kill him using sticks and iron pipes, strangulated him with a rope, transported his body in a rickshaw, and staged the scene to resemble a road accident. The prosecution sought to establish guilt under Sections 120B, 302, 201 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
Procedural History
- 1994: Charge sheet filed by Halol Police before Judicial Magistrate First Class
- 2001: Additional Sessions Judge, Godhra, acquitted all accused after trial
- 2001: State of Gujarat filed appeal under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure
- 2026: Gujarat High Court heard the appeal and confirmed the acquittal
Relief Sought
The State sought to set aside the acquittal and convict the accused, arguing that the ocular testimony of the injured witness and medical evidence were sufficient to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether the appellate court could overturn an acquittal based on circumstantial evidence when the chain of circumstances is broken by unproved forensic links, contradictory panch witness testimony, and absence of last seen evidence.
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant
The State contended that the trial court erred in disregarding the testimony of the injured witness who identified the accused in court, and that the medical evidence confirming homicidal death corroborated the prosecution’s narrative. It argued that the recovery of blood-stained soil, a chappal, and weapons from the accused, along with drag marks at the scene, formed a compelling circumstantial chain. The State relied on the principle that appellate courts have unfettered power to reappreciate evidence under Section 378 CrPC.
For the Respondent
The accused maintained that the prosecution failed to establish any direct link between them and the murder. They highlighted that no eyewitness saw the assault, the FSL report was not proved, blood samples were not confirmed as human or belonging to the deceased, and panch witnesses gave mutually contradictory accounts. The defense invoked the double presumption of innocence and argued that the trial court’s acquittal was the only reasonable conclusion.
The Court's Analysis
The Court undertook a meticulous review of the evidence and found that the prosecution’s case rested entirely on circumstantial evidence, which was critically flawed at multiple junctures. The absence of a verified FSL report meant that blood stains on the chappal, clothes, and rickshaw could not be linked to the deceased. The panch witnesses for recovery and scene of offence were unreliable, with some contradicting each other on material facts such as the condition of the accused’s house, the presence of a barking dog, and the visibility of the name board.
"The chain of circumstantial evidence is broken at several vital links - absence of proof of deceased's blood, unreliable and contradictory panch witnesses, no last seen evidence, no direct or ocular account, and failure to establish conscious possession or exclusive recovery implicating the accused in the murder itself."
The Court emphasized that while Section 378 CrPC grants appellate courts broad powers to reappreciate evidence, this does not permit substitution of opinion for reasoned conclusion. Citing Rajesh Prasad v. State of Bihar and H.D. Sundara & Ors. v. State of Karnataka, the Court reiterated that where two reasonable conclusions are possible, the appellate court must uphold the acquittal. The trial court’s finding that the prosecution failed to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt was not merely plausible - it was the only logically defensible conclusion.
The Verdict
The appeal was dismissed. The Gujarat High Court confirmed the acquittal of all accused, holding that the prosecution failed to establish an unbroken chain of circumstantial evidence pointing solely to their guilt. The double presumption of innocence and the requirement that guilt be the only reasonable conclusion were decisive.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Circumstantial Evidence Must Be Internally Consistent
- Practitioners must ensure every link in a circumstantial chain is independently proved and corroborated
- Unverified forensic reports, unproved recovery panchnamas, and contradictory panch testimony will fatally undermine the prosecution’s case
- The absence of a single direct witness does not automatically invalidate a case, but the circumstantial evidence must be mutually reinforcing
Appellate Courts Cannot Substitute Their Own View
- An appellate court may reappreciate evidence but cannot reverse an acquittal merely because it finds another view possible
- The burden is on the State to show that the trial court’s conclusion was perverse or the only possible inference was guilt
- This judgment reinforces that acquittals are not mere procedural outcomes - they are constitutional affirmations of the presumption of innocence
Forensic Evidence Must Be Proved, Not Just Recovered
- Recovery of blood-stained items is meaningless unless the FSL report is formally admitted and proved in court
- Courts will not infer human blood or victim’s identity from unproved scientific reports
- Prosecutors must ensure forensic evidence is not merely collected but formally tendered and cross-examined
