STATE OF GUJARAT V. KALIDAS ALIAS NARAYAAN SHANABHAI FULMALI & ORS 2025:GUJHC:32563-DB:

DATE: 18/06/2025

COURT: High Court of Gujarat

BENCH: Justice Vaibhavi D. Nanavati and Justice Utkarsh Thakorbhai Desai

FACTS:

The incident took place on 29.01.1998 in Vadodara, Gujarat. On the day of the incident, the deceased, Shardaben, was alone at home plastering the floor with cow dung while her husband had gone to work. Around 1 PM, three of her in-laws accused no. 1 (her sister-in-law’s husband or nandoi), accused no. 2 (her sister-in-law or nanand), and accused no. 3 (her elder sister-in-law or jethani)—came to her house. They allegedly abused her verbally, accusing her of returning despite being told to stay away. It is alleged that accused no. 1 brought a kerosene can, tried to pour kerosene on her, and when she attempted to flee, accused nos. 2 and 3 held her back, enabling accused no. 1 to ignite a matchstick and set her ablaze. Upon hearing her screams, her mother-in-law rushed to the scene, covered her with a blanket, and took her to the hospital in an autorickshaw. Shardaben later succumbed to her burn injuries at the hospital.

Following this, a complaint was lodged, and the police investigated the case, filing a charge sheet under Sections 302, 294, 452, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The Sessions Court framed charges, to which the accused pleaded not guilty. The prosecution examined nine witnesses and submitted eleven documentary pieces of evidence, including the deceased’s complaint, panchnamas, post-mortem report, and a dying declaration. However, the Trial Court acquitted all accused on 24.03.1999. The State of Gujarat challenged this acquittal under Section 378 of the CrPC. During the pendency of the appeal, accused no. 2 passed away, leading to abatement of proceedings against her, and the appeal continued against accused nos. 1 and 3.

ISSUES:

The primary issue in this case was whether the acquittal of the accused under Sections 302, 294, 452, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code by the Additional Sessions Judge, Vadodara, in Sessions Case No. 104 of 1998 was justified, or whether the appellate court should interfere with the order of acquittal in light of the evidence presented by the prosecution and the arguments advanced by the State.

JUDGEMENT WITH REASONING:

The Gujarat High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the State under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, thereby affirming the acquittal of accused nos. 1 and 3 as ordered by the trial court. The Court found no sufficient ground to interfere with the impugned judgment dated 24.03.1999 and concluded that the trial court’s reasoning and conclusions were sound, proper, and legally sustainable.

The Court observed that in an appeal against acquittal, unless the trial court's findings are perverse, manifestly illegal, or such that material evidence has been overlooked, the appellate court should not interfere. The High Court referred to the Supreme Court's ruling in State of Karnataka v. Hemareddy (AIR 1981 SC 1417), which held that if the appellate court agrees with the reasoning of the trial court, there is no need to re-narrate or re-evaluate all the evidence at length. In the present case, the High Court found that the trial court had considered all relevant evidence and had reasonably concluded that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt.

The High Court further noted that the trial court had acknowledged the possibility of prior animosity between the deceased and the accused, which could explain the deceased’s naming of the accused in her dying declaration. Importantly, there were no eyewitnesses to corroborate the account of the incident, and the evidence brought on record did not conclusively establish the involvement of the accused in the commission of the alleged offence. The prosecution failed to present any new, cogent, or reliable evidence that would warrant overturning the acquittal. As such, the Court held that the lower court’s assessment of facts and appreciation of evidence was legally sound and did not suffer from any infirmity requiring interference.

ANALYSIS:

This case highlights the critical standards that govern appellate review in criminal acquittal matters, particularly the principle that an acquittal can only be overturned if the trial court’s judgment is found to be perverse, arbitrary, or legally unsustainable. The Gujarat High Court, relying on precedent from the Supreme Court, notably State of Karnataka v. Hemareddy, reinforced the settled legal position that an appellate court need not re-evaluate the evidence at length when it agrees with the reasoning of the trial court. The High Court scrutinized the record and found that the trial court had duly considered all material aspects, including the lack of eyewitnesses and the potential influence of familial hostility on the deceased’s dying declaration. In the absence of direct or corroborative evidence linking the accused conclusively to the crime, the trial court's decision to acquit was not considered unjust or unreasonable.

Furthermore, the case underscores the importance of proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt in criminal trials. The prosecution's reliance primarily on a dying declaration, uncorroborated by independent witnesses or forensic certainty, weakened its case. The possibility of enmity influencing the accusation raised doubts about the reliability of the deceased’s statement. The High Court emphasized that the benefit of doubt must go to the accused, especially when the evidence is not compelling or unequivocal. Thus, this judgment upholds the presumption of innocence and the high evidentiary threshold required to secure a conviction in criminal law, reaffirming the judiciary's commitment to safeguarding procedural fairness and due process.