Acquittal Cannot Be Reversed When Ocular Account Of Mob Assault Is Belied By Medical Evidence Showing Single Injury: Gujarat High Court

"If the twelve accused were simultaneously inflicting the blows by sticks, sword, dharia, and other iron pipes then there was every possibility that there were multiple injury found on the body of the deceased but the same were not found," Gujarat High Court, in a significant ruling dated July 17, 2026, held that an order of acquittal cannot be overturned when the eyewitness account of a mob assault is fundamentally contradicted by medical evidence.

A division bench comprising Justice Hemant M. Prachchhak and Justice Mool Chand Tyagi observed that allegations of twelve accused persons simultaneously attacking the deceased with heavy weapons were highly improbable, given that the postmortem revealed only a single fatal head injury.

The State of Gujarat had preferred the present appeal challenging a 1998 judgment passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Palanpur. The trial court had acquitted twelve individuals accused of forming an unlawful assembly and murdering one Siddharajsing during a midnight altercation. The prosecution's case primarily rested on the complaint of the deceased's wife, who alleged that her stepmother-in-law and other relatives attacked her husband with swords, sticks, and dharias over a property dispute.

The primary question before the court was whether the trial court was justified in discarding the eyewitness testimonies and passing an order of acquittal. The court was also called upon to determine whether the glaring inconsistencies between the ocular assertions and the medical evidence rendered the prosecution's case wholly unreliable.

Ocular Testimony Inconsistent With Medical Findings

The High Court noted a stark contradiction between the number of assailants, the weapons allegedly used, and the actual injuries sustained by the deceased. While the complainant claimed that a mob of twelve people ruthlessly assaulted her husband with lethal weapons, the medical officer's report painted a completely different picture. The court observed that such a brutal assault by a dozen armed individuals would naturally result in multiple wounds across the body.

Fatal Blow Limited To A Single Head Injury

Evaluating the postmortem report and the doctor's deposition, the bench noted that there were no corresponding injuries to corroborate a mob attack. The court observed that the only injury sustained on the body of the deceased was a head injury caused by some heavy weapon, which proved to be fatal in nature. Highlighting the impossibility of the prosecution's narrative, the bench noted that if twelve accused were simultaneously inflicting blows, there was every possibility of multiple injuries being found.

Eyewitness Account Fails Judicial Scrutiny

The bench proceeded to scrutinize the testimony of the deceased's wife, who was presented as the primary eyewitness. The court found that her cross-examination completely washed out the narrative she provided in her chief examination. The bench noted that she admitted to naming the assailants based on information provided by villagers, without actually knowing their identities. In a glaring lapse, she had even named a person who had died ten years prior to the incident, only realizing her mistake later.

"Appellate Court must bear in mind that in case of acquittal there is double presumption in favour of the accused... Secondly, the accused having secured his acquittal, the presumption of their innocence is further reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by the trial Court."

Unnatural Conduct Of Relatives

The court also found the conduct of the deceased's brother, presented as another injured eyewitness, to be highly unnatural. The bench observed that the brother admitted to waking up, seeing the deceased bleeding, and immediately running away from the scene out of fear for his own life. The court concluded that this witness had not actually seen the incident or the individuals who caused the fatal injury, rendering his testimony incapable of inspiring confidence.

Scope Of Appellate Interference In Acquittals

Relying on the Supreme Court's pronouncements in cases like Chandrappa vs. State of Karnataka and Rajendra Prasad vs. State of Bihar, the High Court reiterated the settled principles of criminal jurisprudence regarding appeals against acquittal. The bench emphasized that an appellate court should not disturb an acquittal if two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the evidence on record. The court stated that interference is only warranted when the trial court's approach is vitiated by manifest illegality or perversity.

No Credible Evidence To Connect Accused

The bench ultimately found that independent witnesses and panchas had turned hostile, and the recovery of weapons and the scene of occurrence panchnama were not proved by the prosecution. The court noted that there was no credible evidence to connect the present accused with the alleged crime beyond reasonable doubt.

Concluding its judgment, the High Court found that the trial court committed no error of fact or law in appreciating the evidence and acquitting the accused. The bench held that the prosecution had miserably failed to establish the charges, rendering the appeal devoid of merits. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the State's appeal and confirmed the trial court's judgment of acquittal.

Date of Decision: 17 July 2026