Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2026 DIGILAW 9 (GUJ)

Anilbhai Jagdishbhai Parmar v. State Of Gujarat

2026-01-05

D.M.VYAS, N.S.SANJAY GOWDA

body2026
ORDER : N.S. SANJAY GOWDA, J. 1. This appeal has been preferred by the victim, challenging the order of acquittal passed in favour of the four accused. 2. Anil Bhai Jagdish Bhai Parmar (hereinafter referred to as the “victim”), was a police constable. The father of the victim filed a complaint on 08.02.2020 contending that on 07.02.2020 his son i.e., the victim, had left home at about 8.00 a.m. to report to the Talaja police station and at 6.00 p.m. in the evening, when he was at home along with his two sons, a phone call was received by his son Shivrambhai, through which he was informed that Anil had been assaulted near Nani Rajasthali village and was being taken to Palitana in a 108 ambulance. It was stated that upon receiving this information, he along with his son and family members reached the government hospital at Palitana and found that Anil had sustained injuries on both his hands, legs, waist and head and blood was oozing from his body. 3. It was stated that when queried about who had assaulted him, Anil informed them that after he had marked his presence at Talaja police station and was returning home, and when he had reached a place between Sitaram Bhadiyo and Sai Vatika, a four- wheeler came from the rear and with an intention to kill him, hit him from behind as a result of which he fell down. 4. Thereupon, the accused no. 1 namely Mohammadbhai @ Tikudo Ibrahimbhai Bilakhiya along with his father, his brother and one unknown person got down from the four-wheeler and all four of them assaulted him indiscriminately all over his body using an iron pipe, a hammer, iron rods and sticks. It was stated that at that time, Pappubhai Bharwad of Sanjanasar arrived and on seeing him, all four of the accused fled away in the four-wheeler. He stated that as a result of the assault, both his hands and legs had been fractured and he had also sustained an injury on his head and someone had called an ambulance and he was brought to the government hospital at Palitana. 5. It was stated that Anil was bleeding from both hands, legs and head and after he was provided with primary treatment at Palitana, he was admitted for further treatment in the emergency ward of Sir T. Hospital at Bhavnagar. 5. It was stated that Anil was bleeding from both hands, legs and head and after he was provided with primary treatment at Palitana, he was admitted for further treatment in the emergency ward of Sir T. Hospital at Bhavnagar. It was stated that the doctor at Bhavnagar examined Anil and informed them that he had sustained injuries to both hands, legs and had suffered a serious injury to his head and they had applied seven to eight stitches. It was stated that Tikudo Ghachi, whose real name is Mohammadbhai @ Tikudo Ibrahimbhai Bilakhiya also known as Tikudo, and his father Ibrahimbhai alias Ibhlo Jamatmiya Bilkhiya and Tikudo's brother Imran Ibrahimbhai Bilkhiya, and the other unknown person, were all residents of the Palitana Talav area. 6. It was also stated that the motive for this incident was that about four months prior to the assault, there had been a quarrel between the complainant and the accused in respect to which a complaint had been filed against them and with this grudge in mind, when his son was returning home from Talaja, he had been assaulted and life-threatening injuries were inflicted upon him. It was lastly stated in the complaint that due to the injuries suffered by his son, the doctors had inserted tubes into his mouth and nose as a result of which he was not in a position to speak. 7. On the basis of this complaint, an FIR was registered and an investigation was undertaken. Upon completion of the investigation, a charge-sheet was laid against the accused and since the offence alleged was triable only by the Sessions Court, the case was committed to the Sessions Court and after the committal was made, a supplementary charge-sheet was also filed and both of them were consolidated and after hearing a charge was framed and thereafter a trial was conducted. 8. During the course of the trial, 18 witnesses, including the victim, were examined. A total of 57 documents were also exhibited by the prosecution. A statement was recorded of the accused and thereafter they had stated that they had no evidence to offer and the Sessions Court accordingly heard the arguments and by the impugned order, has proceeded to acquit the accused. 9. A total of 57 documents were also exhibited by the prosecution. A statement was recorded of the accused and thereafter they had stated that they had no evidence to offer and the Sessions Court accordingly heard the arguments and by the impugned order, has proceeded to acquit the accused. 9. Learned Counsel appearing for the victim, contended that the reasoning of the Sessions Court, that there were contradictions in the statement of the injured victim, and this resulted in a situation where the entire incident was doubtful cannot be accepted since there was no apparent contradiction and merely because there was some minor difference in the way the incident was narrated, the Sessions Court could not have disbelieved the entire testimony of the injured. Learned Counsel pointed out that the medical evidence did point to the clear fact that the victim had suffered serious injuries, and the other evidence also directly pointed a finger at the accused. The Sessions Court could not have acquitted the accused. 10.We have examined the material that had been placed on record and also perused the translated copy of the judgment which was made available to us. On re- appreciation of the evidence and upon perusal of the reasoning, we are of the view that there is no case made out to entertain the appeal and the appeal is required to be dismissed summarily for the following reasons. 11.As narrated above, the case of the prosecution was that a complaint was lodged by the father of the victim, that while the victim was returning from his house after he had gone to report for duty, his motorcycle was hit from the rear by a four-wheeler and from this four-wheeler, the accused had emerged with iron pipes, rods and sticks and had assaulted the victim with, which had caused life-threatening injuries. 12.The Sessions Court has found that the victim was taken to the Government Hospital, Palitana, for primary treatment. It has noticed that according to the complaint, when the victim was being assaulted, one Pappubhai had arrived on the scene and on seeing him, all the accused had fled away in the four-wheeler. 12.The Sessions Court has found that the victim was taken to the Government Hospital, Palitana, for primary treatment. It has noticed that according to the complaint, when the victim was being assaulted, one Pappubhai had arrived on the scene and on seeing him, all the accused had fled away in the four-wheeler. 13.The Sessions Court has taken note of the fact that though this Pappubhai was stated to be an eyewitness to the incident and was the person who came to the spot at the time of the assault, the IO had not recorded any statement of the said Pappubhai, and this indicated that the case put forth by the prosecution could not be accepted as being truthful. The Sessions Court has also noticed that in one of the versions of the complaint, the sarpanch had come to the spot and he had informed the police. But even in respect of this version, the IO had not recorded any statement of the sarpanch to believe this version. 14.In the complaint lodged by the father of the victim, on 08.02.2020, it was alleged that the four accused, who were actually named in the complaint, had assaulted the victim on 07.02.2020. However, the Sessions Court had noticed that the victim was immediately transferred to the Government Hospital in Palitana in an ambulance and there was evidence on record that the complainant was not in the ambulance. The Sessions Court has also noticed that the victim was conscious only for about half an hour in the ambulance and thereafter he had lost his consciousness. 15.It has also recorded a finding that the victim was referred from the Government Hospital at Palitana to the Sir T. Hospital at Bhavnagar and during his admission at Sir T. Hospital, Bhavnagar, he was unconscious. The Sessions Court has therefore recorded a finding that the assertions made in the complaint about the involvement of the four accused cannot be accepted since the victim had no chance to narrate as to who were the persons who had assaulted him. In fact, the Sessions Court has noticed the evidence of the victim in which he has admitted that he had not narrated the history of the assault to the Doctors at Sir T. Hospital, Bhavnagar and the involvement of only the first accused was made known by him to the Mamlatdar, when the statement was recorded on 09.02.2020. In fact, the Sessions Court has noticed the evidence of the victim in which he has admitted that he had not narrated the history of the assault to the Doctors at Sir T. Hospital, Bhavnagar and the involvement of only the first accused was made known by him to the Mamlatdar, when the statement was recorded on 09.02.2020. 16.In other words, the Sessions Court has noticed that immediately after the incident, the victim had not named all the four accused and in fact the Doctor had not even named any one of the accused. It is unbelievable that the constable would not have made note of the persons who had assaulted him, especially when the persons who had assaulted him had in fact lodged a complaint against him and which had resulted in his suspension. If the victim had a known enmity with the accused and if the accused had in fact assaulted him, the first thing that he would have informed the Doctors would be about the assault being made by the persons who were enmity towards him, i.e., the accused. 17.The Sessions Court has also noticed that in the statements recorded on 09.02.2020, 15.02.2020 and 19.03.2020, there were three different versions of the victim regarding the involvement of all the four accused. In fact, the victim during the course of his cross-examination admitted that prior to giving his statement before the Mamlatdar, he had not told anyone that he had been assaulted, and thereafter he stated that he had told it to the family members. The Sessions Court has noticed that the victim had told his family members that he had been assaulted when they arrived at Government Hospital, Palitana from where he was transferred to Bhavnagar. However, the Sessions Court has noticed that the victim admitted that he had been admitted at the Bhavnagar hospital in an unconscious state and had not known at what time his father had arrived at Bhavnagar Sir T. Hospital. The Sessions Court also noted that the victim had admitted that his statement was recorded four times and in none of the statements he had mentioned that Sikandar i.e., Accused No. 4 was involved in the accident. The Sessions Court also noted that the victim had admitted that his statement was recorded four times and in none of the statements he had mentioned that Sikandar i.e., Accused No. 4 was involved in the accident. 18.In the light of these clear findings recorded by the Sessions Court on the basis of the admissions given by the victim, the Sessions Court was perfectly justified in disbelieving the entire case put forth by the prosecution. 19.It is to be reiterated that the victim was a police constable, who had been suspended due to a complaint by the accused, and in this background, if the victim had not categorically stated regarding the involvement of all the accused at the very first opportunity, then the Sessions Court was justified in coming to the conclusion that there were serious contradictions and there was an attempt made to improve upon the earliest version in order to implicate the accused. 20.The victim was initially taken to Government Hospital, Palitana from where he was referred to Sir T. Hospital, Bhavnagar. The Sessions Court has noticed that there was no referral memo of the Government Hospital, Palitana to come to the conclusion as to whether the victim was capable of informing the persons in the ambulance about the assault. If there is no medical evidence indicating the state of consciousness of the victim immediately after the accident and his capability of giving a history to the persons in the ambulance, the assertions made in the complaint which carried details of the names of the accused cannot be accepted. More so, when the complaint was lodged when the victim was still in an unconscious state at Sir T. Bhavnagar. 21.The complainant had stated that the victim had gone to the police station to report for duty after his suspension had been revoked. The Sessions Court has found that the written order revoking the suspension had not been produced. The Sessions Court has noticed that the victim had thereafter changed his story to state that he was entrusted with the duty of serving summons on that particular date and while going to serve the summons, the accident had occurred. The Sessions Court has found that the written order revoking the suspension had not been produced. The Sessions Court has noticed that the victim had thereafter changed his story to state that he was entrusted with the duty of serving summons on that particular date and while going to serve the summons, the accident had occurred. The Sessions Court has noticed the evidence of the IO, in which he has stated that there was no record to indicate that the accused had been entrusted with the task of serving summons and that the accident occurred while he was on duty. If, the order revoking the suspension has not been produced and no record is produced to indicate that the victim was on duty when the incident took place, it is obvious that an attempt was being made to create a story that the accused was on duty when this incident occurred. Given the fact that there was a complaint against the victim, this conduct assumes significance and the possibility of a false story being concocted, cannot be ruled out. 22.The case of the victim was that a car in which the accused were present hit him from the rear as a result of which he fell down. The Sessions Court has noticed that the evidence on record indicated that there was no damage to the rear of the motorcycle and the only damage was to the middle of the motorcycle on the front side, and this by itself falsified the theory of the motorcycle being hit from behind. It has also doubted the involvement of the car, since the car was found 7 Kms away from the incident and the case of the IO was that the sarpanch had informed him about the car having been abandoned. The evidence on record also does not indicate that there had been any damage to the car to conclude that it had been involved in the accident. 23.The Sessions Court has noticed that the IO had collected the blood samples of the accused and had sent them to the forensic laboratory, but no report had been produced to indicate that the blood group of the accused matched with the blood stains found at the spot on the clothes of the victim. This would also indicate that there was no acceptable evidence to indicate that the accused were present at the spot. This would also indicate that there was no acceptable evidence to indicate that the accused were present at the spot. 24.The case of the complainant was that Pappubhai was present at the spot and had witnessed the assault and because he came to the spot, the accused fled from the spot. However, as pointed out by the Sessions Court, the IO has not recorded the statement of this Pappubhai and the absence of this crucial eyewitness creates a serious doubt about the entire case put forth by the prosecution. Apart from the victim, there is only one eyewitness and if that eyewitness has not been examined, the entire case put forth by the prosecution is rendered doubtful. More so, when the victim is a police constable who had been suspended on the basis of a complaint that had been lodged against him by the accused. 25.In our view, having regard to the fact that there were four different versions of the victim regarding the involvement of the accused and the very first statement did not name any of the accused, the Sessions Court was justified in acquitting the accused, keeping in mind that the victim was a police constable and the fact that he had not named the accused at the first instance created a serious doubt about the entire incident. 26.We are therefore of the view that there is no justification to entertain this appeal and this appeal is dismissed summarily at the admission stage itself. Bail bond, if any, shall discharged. R & P to be sent back forthwith to the concerned Trial Court.