Gujarat HC upholds acquittal in alleged rape and murder case as chain of circumstances was not complete

Court: High Court of Gujarat
Date of judgment: 7 October 2026
Case: CR.A/1150/2026
Parties: STATE OF GUJARAT Vs THE ACCUSED
Bench: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ILESH J. VORA, HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. T. VACHHANI
Outcome: Dismissed

Summary

The Gujarat High Court has dismissed, at the admission stage, the State's appeal against the acquittal of an accused who was tried for the alleged rape and murder of his fiancée, whom the prosecution described as a minor. A Bench of Justice Ilesh J. Vora and Justice R. T. Vachhani held that the prosecution, which relied wholly on circumstantial evidence, had not proved its circumstances by reliable and clinching evidence, and that the Trial Court's acquittal was a plausible view with no perversity in it.

The appeal (Criminal Appeal No. 1150 of 2026) was filed under Section 419 of the BNSS, corresponding to Section 378 of the Cr.P.C. It challenged the judgment of the trial court in Special (POCSO) Case No. 31 of 2022, dated 29.11.2025, which acquitted the accused of offences under Sections 302 and 376(2)(n)(3) of the IPC and Sections 4, 5(L) and 6 of the POCSO Act.

According to the prosecution, the body of the girl was found in a farm on 09.07.2022. It alleged that the accused called her to the spot, raped her, and then, harbouring suspicion, strangled her with his hand and later with a scarf. The prosecution examined 28 witnesses and exhibited 54 documents. The Trial Court found that the prosecution had not even proved that the deceased was a minor, and that motive, conduct, the discovery of the place under Section 27 of the Evidence Act and the forensic evidence were not established as a complete chain.

The question before the court

Whether the High Court should interfere with an acquittal based on a view of the evidence that was reasonably possible
Whether the prosecution proved a complete chain of circumstances (motive, call details, forensic evidence, discovery of the place, statement before the doctor) pointing only to the guilt of the accused
Whether the statement made before the doctor in police presence and the pointing out of the place could be used against the accused

What each side argued

The State argued that the findings of acquittal were contrary to law and evidence, and that the school records proved the deceased was a minor, which the Trial Court wrongly discarded.
The State said motive was established, since the accused used to talk with the deceased on mobile and the call details showed he called her to the place.
The State relied on the discovery of the place of incident on the accused's information under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, and on the forensic finding that the accused's spermatozoa matched samples taken from the body.
The State submitted that the accused voluntarily told the doctor how he killed the deceased, that the chain of circumstances was complete, and that the acquittal was perverse.

The court's decision

Before the rival submissions, the Court noted the scope of interference in an appeal against acquittal. It said an appellate court can interfere only in exceptional cases with compelling circumstances, where the judgment is perverse, and must remember that an acquittal strengthens the presumption of innocence. Interference in a routine manner, where another view is possible, is to be avoided.

The case rested on circumstantial evidence, so the Court applied the five principles in Sharad Bardhichand Sharda Vs. State of Maharashtra and the reminder in Kamal Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) that the circumstances must or should be proved, and not merely may be proved. Suspicion, however strong, cannot take the place of proof beyond reasonable doubt. The death was admittedly homicidal. The Court then examined each circumstance.

On motive, no witness, including the parents and relatives of the deceased, deposed against the accused. They said the relationship between the two was cordial and that they had no suspicion he would kill her. There was no evidence that he doubted her character, so motive was not proved. The call details showed only that the two were in contact, which the accused and the witnesses admitted, and no transcript was produced to show any motive.

On forensic evidence, the investigating officer had not obtained samples for a DNA report. A blood group match with the vaginal swab could not be treated as incriminating, since without a DNA report it was difficult to conclude that the accused had intercourse before the death. On the Section 27 discovery, the panchnama witness did not say the accused was asked in his presence to make a statement, and the investigating officer failed to depose that the accused, in custody, made a statement of his own free will that he would lead to the place. Before the pointing out, the investigating officer had already visited the place of occurrence, so nothing was discovered as a consequence of the statement. The pointing out could not be considered. The history given before the doctor was recorded while the accused was escorted by police, and the police yadi already mentioned his role. It was not voluntary and was barred by Sections 25 and 26 of the Evidence Act.

The Bench concluded that the prosecution failed to prove the necessary incriminating circumstances by reliable and clinching evidence so as to form a complete chain without gaps. It was conscious of the seriousness of the offence, but conviction is not permissible on suspicion, and it referred to Surendra Koli Vs. State of U.P. for the view that when proof fails, the only lawful outcome is to set aside the conviction, even in a horrific crime. The Trial Court's view was plausible and no perversity was found. The appeal was dismissed at the admission stage.

Precedents referred to

Sharad Bardhichand Sharda Vs. State of Maharashtra (1984 (4) SCC 116)
Kamal Vs. State (NCT of Delhi), 2023 SCC Online 933
Surendra Koli Vs. State of U.P. (2025 LawSuit S.C. 1479)

Provisions referred to

Section 419 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023
Sections 302 and 376(2)(n)(3) of the Indian Penal Code
Sections 4, 5(L) and 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012
Sections 25, 26 and 27 of the Indian Evidence Act

Read the full judgment (PDF) ↗

Official source: High Court of Gujarat. The PDF above is a copy from an open dataset of the court's public records.

This summary is prepared for general assistance only. It may contain errors and is not legal advice — rely on the full judgment.

Criminal Acquittal Appeal Circumstantial Evidence Pocso

Related judgments

Gujarat High Court Allowed ·7 Oct 2026 ·Criminal ★ Editor's pick

Gujarat HC quashes FIR against two lenders over a borrower's suicide: no proximate act or intent to abet, extortion not made out

The question: Whether the FIR and charge-sheet disclose abetment of suicide under Sections 306 and 107 IPC against lenders alleged to have harassed the deceased for recovery

The Gujarat High Court has quashed an FIR, the charge-sheet and all consequential proceedings against two lenders named in an FIR alleging that they abetted the suicide of a man who had borrowed on interest, and alleging extortion. Justice P. M. Raval held that, even if severe financial pressure and exorbitant interest were assumed, there was no proximate prior act showing a deliberate intent on the applicants' part to drive the deceased to suicide, as Sections 306 and 107 IPC require. On Section 386 IPC, the Court noted that the FIR did not allege the deceased was put in fear of death or grievous hurt when the signed blank cheques and stamp paper were handed over. It also found no documents to support the charges under the Gujarat Money-Lenders Act, 2011, and a suicide note that spoke only in general terms of financial stress. The FIR (C.R. No. I-37 of 2018, Malviyanagar Police Station, Rajkot, registered on 09.03.2018) was lodged by the wife of the deceased. It names five accused persons, including the two applicants, and alleges that her husband borrowed money on interest from them, was pressed with threats and heavy recovery demands, and consumed poisonous medicine on 08.03.2018 and died during treatment at about 09:00 p.m. It invokes Sections 306, 386 and 114 IPC and Sections 5, 40 and 42 of the Gujarat Money-Lenders Act, 2011. The applicants are Khodabhai Dhanabhai Jograna (Criminal Misc. Application No. 6657 of 2018), who is alleged to have lent Rs. 4,00,000 in 2012-2013, and Kalubhai Shiyaliya (Criminal Misc. Application No. 6389 of 2018), alleged to have lent Rs. 1,50,000 against two blank signed cheques and a blank stamp paper. The FIR states that he unilaterally filled in Rs.3,00,000 in each cheque, got them dishonoured and served a statutory legal notice. Both applications were heard together and allowed.

CR.MA/6657/2018

Delhi High Court Allowed ·7 Oct 2026 ·Criminal ★ Editor's pick

Delhi HC grants NDPS bail: alleged 259 gm recovery just above 250 gm commercial quantity, 15 months in custody, no evidence yet recorded

The question: Whether the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act bar bail where the alleged recovery is only marginally above the commercial quantity

The Delhi High Court has granted regular bail to a man accused under Sections 8 and 21 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, in a case where the alleged recovery of morphine was 259 grams against the commercial quantity of 250 grams. Justice Amit Bansal noted that the recovery was marginally above the commercial quantity, that the applicant had been in custody for one year and three months, that charges were framed but no evidence had been recorded, and that he had no other NDPS case. The Court held that a prima facie case for bail was made out on the grounds of absence of independent witnesses and prolonged delay in the trial. The application was filed under Section 483 read with Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in connection with FIR No. 172/2025 of Police Station Crime Branch (South-East). The applicant has been in custody since his arrest on 6 July 2025. The order's account of the prosecution case gives the date of apprehension as 6 July 2026, which does not fit this date or the one year and three months of custody it records. According to the prosecution, the applicant was apprehended during regular patrolling and 259.3 grams of morphine was found in his possession. On his disclosure, 114 grams of morphine was allegedly recovered from one Lalit, who was also arrested. The samples sent to the forensic science laboratory were reported positive for morphine and several other substances. The status report states that the investigation is complete, the chargesheet is filed and charges have been framed. The State opposed bail on the ground that a commercial quantity attracts Section 37, that the recovery from the co-accused was of an intermediate quantity so parity could not be claimed, and that the applicant had an earlier FIR of 2015. The applicant answered that the earlier FIR concerned a different offence and that he had been granted bail in it. The order records these contentions without ruling on parity or the earlier FIR separately.

BAIL APPLN./2008/2026

Manipur High Court Allowed ·10 Sep 2026 ·Criminal

Manipur HC grants bail in NDPS case: twin test of Section 37 held met for passenger, over three and a half years in custody

The question: Whether bail can be granted in a commercial quantity NDPS case on the ground of long custody and slow trial without satisfying the twin test of Section 37

The High Court of Manipur has granted bail to a man arrested on 16 December 2022 under Sections 21(c), 29 and 60(3) of the NDPS Act, 1985, involving an alleged commercial quantity of narcotics found in a vehicle in which he was travelling. Justice A. Guneshwar Sharma held that the twin test under Section 37 of the Act was satisfied on the facts recorded in the order, and that he had been in custody for more than three and a half years with the trial moving slowly. The Court applied the Supreme Court's ruling in State of Punjab v. Balraj Singh @ Billa (2026 SCC Online SC 1058), para 17, and said that Section 37 must be satisfied in a commercial quantity case even where the plea is long incarceration. It found the test met on these facts: apart from being a passenger, nothing in the chargesheet was placed against the petitioner, he was not said to own the vehicle, and he had no earlier case. According to the prosecution, personnel of the 20th Assam Rifles, Tengnoupal, found 49 packets of brown sugar, about 2.163 kg including packing material, hidden inside the seat of a Mahindra Bolero on 16 December 2022. The driver and owner is alleged to have gone to the toilet and fled into the jungle. The petitioner and another passenger were arrested and an FIR was registered at Tengnoupal Police Station. A chargesheet was filed, Special Trial No. 34 of 2023 was registered before the Special Judge (NDPS), and the case stood at the stage of charge hearing. The Special Judge rejected his bail plea on 28 December 2023, noting that a commercial quantity had been recovered from the vehicle in which the two arrested persons were travelling. He then moved the High Court under Section 439 CrPC read with Section 37 of the NDPS Act. The judgment was reserved on 15 May 2026 and delivered on 10 September 2026.

BAIL APPLN./5/2024