Gujarat HC upholds 2015 acquittal in Sutrapada poisoning case where seized bottle was never sent to FSL
Justice S.V. Pinto dismissed the State appeal against the acquittal of two men accused of forcing a young woman to drink poison in a maize field in April 2014, finding material omissions in her complaint, no eyewitness to the act, a hospital history naming unknown persons, and an aluminium bottle that the police seized but never had analysed.
A State appeal that had waited a decade for hearing ended on 26 October 2026 with the Gujarat High Court confirming the acquittal of Naranbhai Rudabhai Solanki and a co-accused, charged with forcing a young woman to swallow a capful of poison in a maize field near Sutrapada in April 2014. Justice S.V. Pinto, hearing the matter at Ahmedabad with no one appearing for the accused, re-read the evidence of all seventeen prosecution witnesses and found the same gaps the trial court had: the complainant’s account in court went well beyond her written complaint, nobody else saw any poison administered, the hospital at Junagadh recorded that unknown persons were responsible, and the aluminium bottle the police said they recovered at the first accused’s instance was never sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory.
What the prosecution alleged
The prosecution case was that the complainant, who was said to be having an affair with the second accused, went at about noon on 11 April 2014 to switch on the electric motor to irrigate her family’s maize crop. She telephoned the second accused from his mobile phone, which was in her possession, and both accused came up to her. The first accused, it was alleged, urged her to elope with the second; when she refused, the two together compelled her to drink a capful of a poisonous substance and she began vomiting. Her mother took her to a private doctor in the village and then to the Government Hospital at Veraval. A complaint was registered at Sutrapada Police Station the next morning, 12 April 2014, at 10.35 am as I-C.R. No. 25 of 2014 under Sections 328 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code. After committal, the 7th (Ad hoc) Additional Sessions Judge, Veraval, District Junagadh, tried Sessions Case No. 15 of 2014, heard seventeen witnesses and took fourteen documents on record, and acquitted both accused on 24 November 2015.
The State appealed under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, contending that every witness had supported the prosecution, that nothing adverse had emerged in cross-examination, and that the acquittal was perverse. Krutik A. Parikh, Additional Public Prosecutor, took the court through the record. Bailable warrants had been served on the first accused and remained unserved on the second; neither appeared in person or through counsel.
A complaint that grew in the witness box
Justice Pinto began with the limits on an appellate court in an acquittal appeal as summarised in Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka, (2007) 4 SCC 415: the court may reappreciate the whole evidence, but the accused carries a double presumption of innocence after acquittal, and if two reasonable views are possible the trial court’s view is not to be disturbed. The judgment then went witness by witness.
The complainant (PW-3) told the court that both accused asked her to elope with the second accused, that the first caught hold of her while the second made her drink a foul-smelling substance, and that she freed herself and ran. In cross-examination she admitted that the police had written the complaint and she had merely signed it, and that the complaint said nothing about the demand to elope, about being held, about being made to drink poison, or about escaping. The maize, she agreed, stood about as high as a person’s head. She also admitted that the second accused worked for her father and that several prohibition cases had been registered against her father.
Her mother (PW-4) said she heard her daughter shouting, found the accused there and her daughter vomiting, took her home, and after a village doctor advised hospital treatment sent her by 108 ambulance to Veraval and then to Junagadh, where she stayed four days. In cross-examination she admitted that a person inside the head-high maize could not be seen from outside, that she had not witnessed the incident, that she named the accused in her police statement because they were from the same village, and that her daughter was unconscious when she reached her. The brother (PW-6) first said his sister told him the accused had given her poison, then admitted in cross-examination that he and his mother had been inside the house, that he saw no one administer anything, and that his sister, though conscious, did not tell him who had given her the substance. An uncle (PW-12) found her unconscious and could say nothing of his own knowledge. Two panch witnesses to the scene panchnama, two panch witnesses to the recovery of an unlabelled aluminium bottle said to have been produced by the first accused, and five relatives and villagers who had heard the story from the mother were all declared hostile.
The doctors did not help the State. Dr Kishorebhai Haryani (PW-7) at Veraval said the complainant was brought in at about 11 pm by her grandfather, was conscious, had no smell on her breath and was in normal condition, with the admission history naming the first accused and one Ramesh. Dr Shailesh Jadhav (PW-8), who received her at Junagadh at about 3.15 am on 12 April, found her conscious with froth at the mouth and semi-dilated pupils, discharged her the next evening, and recorded a history of poison given by unknown persons; he too said there was no smell and her condition was not serious. The investigating officer, Ravirajsinh Jadeja (PW-17), admitted that the complainant had told him she had been in a love affair with the second accused for three years, that no article was seized from the scene, that nothing was sent to the FSL, that the complainant’s father was in the illicit liquor trade with several prohibition cases against him, and that a competent authority had passed an order restraining the father from entering Gorakhmadhi village.
Suspicion, however strong
On that record the court held that the prosecution had not proved the essential ingredients of Sections 328 and 114, namely the administration of a poisonous or harmful substance by the accused and their participation. The complainant’s testimony suffered from material omissions and improvements against her own complaint. The mother and brother did not establish the actual administration of anything, and contradicted each other on whether the complainant was conscious when they reached her. The medical evidence showed treatment but did not independently establish that the accused had given her any poison. The seized bottle was never analysed, so neither the nature nor the composition of its contents was scientifically established; the FSL mobile unit’s report disclosed nothing suspicious near the spot; and there was no evidence that the complainant had vomited at the scene, which might have corroborated her. The Junagadh hospital history naming unknown persons weakened the case on identity. The father’s prohibition cases could not by themselves decide anything, the court said, but the evidence had to be read with regard to its deficiencies. Deficiencies in proof cannot be made good by conjecture, and an accused cannot be convicted “merely on the basis of suspicion, however strong it may be”. The trial court’s view was not perverse, illegal or contrary to the record, and interference in an acquittal appeal is warranted only for manifest illegality, perversity or demonstrable misappreciation of evidence.
Order
R/Criminal Appeal (Against Acquittal) No. 383 of 2016 was dismissed on 26 October 2026. The judgment and order of acquittal dated 24 November 2015 passed by the 7th (Ad hoc) Additional Sessions Judge, Veraval, District Junagadh, in Sessions Case No. 15 of 2014 was confirmed. The bail bonds stand cancelled and the record and proceedings are to be sent back to the trial court forthwith. The judgment is marked not approved for reporting.