Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Indrasinh Nathubava Matieda on 22 April, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1547/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/04/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1547 of 2008
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE S.V. PINTO
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting No
==========================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
INDRASINH NATHUBAVA MATIEDA & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
Ms. Dhwani Tripathi, APP for the Appellant(s) No. 1
ADVOCATE NOTICE NOT RECD BACK for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s)
No. 1
BAILABLE WARRANT SERVED for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 2
BAILABLE WARRANT UNSERVED for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1
DHAVAL A PARMAR(7780) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 3
MAHESHKUMAR S VASAVA(9394) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE S.V. PINTO
Date : 22/04/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. The appeal is filed by the appellant State under Section 378(1)(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the judgement and order of acquittal passed by the learned Special Judge, Fast Track Court No. 5, Bharuch Camp at Ankleshwar (hereinafter referred to as "the learned Page 1 of 24 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Tue Apr 22 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Apr 22 22:19:24 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1547/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/04/2025 undefined Trial Court") in Special Atrocity Case No. 34/2007 on 25.02.2008, whereby, the learned Trial Court has acquitted the respondent for the offence punishable under Sections 323, 504 and 114 of IPC and Section 3(1)(10) of Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act" for short). 1.1 The respondents are hereinafter referred to as "the accused" as they stood in the original case for the sake of convenience, clarity and brevity.
2. The brief facts that emerge from the record of the case are as under:
2.1 On 18.04.2007, the complainant - Babubhai Mangabhai Vasava was working in survey no. 351 which was an agricultural land situated in the outskirts of village Bhalod along with five labourers. Witness Jeevkuvarba Ramjibhai Gorasiya was standing near the labourers and at around 10.30 am, the accused no. 1 came hurling abuses and shouting, and the complainant - Babubhai Mangabhai Vasava and witness Ramjibhai Kalyanbhai Gorasiya came running to the place. The accused abused them and told Page 2 of 24 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Tue Apr 22 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Apr 22 22:19:24 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1547/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/04/2025 undefined them that their pipeline was broken and to shut it as he wanted to drive the tractor and the accused no. 2 in support of the accused no. 1 hurled caste slurs and abuses; and assaulted the complainant. The complainant filed the complaint at the Umalla Police Station under Sections 323, 504 and 114 of the IPC and Section 3(1)(10) of the Atrocities Act which came to be registered at Umalla Police Station II -
C.R. No. 21 of 2007.
2.2 The Investigating Officer recorded the statements of the connected witnesses and seized the necessary documents and after completion of investigation, a charge- sheet came to be filed before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Zhagadiya and as the said offences against the accused were exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the case was committed to the Special Court, Bharuch as per the provisions of Section 209 of Code of Criminal Procedure and the case was registered as Special Atrocity Case No. 34/2007.
2.3 The accused was duly served with the summons and the accused appeared before the learned Trial Court and it Page 3 of 24 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Tue Apr 22 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Apr 22 22:19:24 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1547/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/04/2025 undefined was verified whether the copies of all the police papers were provided to the accused, as per the provisions of Section 207 of the Code. A charge at Exh. 7 was framed against the accused and the statements of the accused were recorded at Exhs. 8 and 9, wherein, the accused denied the contents of the charge and the entire evidence of the prosecution was taken on record.
2.4 The prosecution produced the following evidence to bring home the charge against the accused.
ORAL EVIDENCE
Sr. No. PW Name of the witness Exh.
1 1 Babubhai Mangabhai Vasava 12
2 2 Ramjibhai Kalyanbhai Gorasiya 15
3 3 Jeevkuvarba Ramjibhai Gorasiya 16
4 4 Rajubhai Ratnabhai Vasava 17
5 5 Praveenbhai Danabhai Vasava 18
6 6 Balvantbhai Bhikhabhai Vasava 19
7 7 Madhavbhai Shanabai Vasava 20
8 8 Dr. Sureshnandan Ramnarayan 22
Yadav
9 9 Bahadurbhai Nathubhai Patel 27
10 10 Bahadurbhai Mohanbhai Vasava 30
11 11 Narendrasinh Hathubhai Raijara 34
Page 4 of 24
Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Tue Apr 22 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Apr 22 22:19:24 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1547/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/04/2025
undefined
DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE
Sr. No. Particulars Exh.
1 Complaint 13
2 Affidavit of complainant 14
3 Panchnama of place of offence 21
4 Yadi 23
5 Injury Certificate 24
6 Panchnama 25
7 Caste Certificate 28
8 Application for obtaining Caste 29
Certificate
9 School leaving certificate Mark A
10 Station Diary 31
11 Appointment Letter 35
2.5 After the learned APP filed the closing pursis, the
further statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 were recorded, wherein, the accused denied all the evidence of the prosecution on record. The accused refused to step into the witness box or examine witnesses on their behalf and stated that a false case has been filed against them. After the arguments of the learned APP and the learned advocate for the accused were heard, the learned Trial Court by the impugned judgement and order was pleased to acquit all the accused from the Page 5 of 24 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Tue Apr 22 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Apr 22 22:19:24 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1547/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/04/2025 undefined charges levelled against them.
3. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said judgment and order of acquittal, the appellant - State has filed the present appeal mainly stating that the impugned judgment and order of acquittal passed by the learned Trial Court is contrary to law and evidence on record and the learned Trial Court has not appreciated the fact that all the witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution and during the cross-examination, nothing adverse has been elicited in favor of the respondents. The case has been proved beyond reasonable doubt and the prosecution has successfully established the case against the respondents and the judgment and order of acquittal is unwarranted, illegal, and without any basis in the eyes of the law and the reasons stated while acquitting the respondent are improper, perverse and bad in law. Hence the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Trial Court deserves to be quashed and set aside.
4. Heard learned APP Ms. Dhwani Tripathi for the Page 6 of 24 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Tue Apr 22 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Apr 22 22:19:24 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1547/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/04/2025 undefined appellant State and learned advocate Mr. Dhawal Parmar for the respondents. Perused the impugned judgement and order of acquittal and have reappreciated the entire evidence of the prosecution on record of the case.
5. Learned APP Ms. Dhwani Tripathi has taken this Court through the entire evidence of the prosecution on record of the case and has submitted that the complainant has fully supported the facts of his complaint. The impugned judgement and order is perverse and learned APP has urged this Court to quash and set aside the same and find the respondent guilty for the offences.
6. At the outset, before discussing the facts of the present case, it would be appropriate to refer to the observations of the Apex Court regarding the scope of interference in acquittal appeals in the case of Chandrappa & Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka reported in 2007 (4) SCC 415, wherein, the Apex Court has observed as under:
Recently, in Kallu Vs. State of M.P. (2006) 10 SCC 313, this Court stated:
Page 7 of 24 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Tue Apr 22 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Apr 22 22:19:24 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1547/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/04/2025 undefined "While deciding an appeal against acquittal, the power of the Appellate Court is no less than the power exercised while hearing appeals against conviction. In both types of appeals, the power exists to review the entire evidence. However, one significant difference is that an order of acquittal will not be interfered with, by an appellate court, where the judgment of the trial court is based on evidence and the view taken is reasonable and plausible. It will not reverse the decision of the trial court merely because a different view is possible. The appellate court will also bear in mind that there is a presumption of innocence in favour of the accused and the accused is entitled to get the benefit of any doubt. Further if it decides to interfere, it should assign reasons for differing with the decision of the trial court".
From the above decisions, in our considered view, the following general principles regarding powers of appellate Court while dealing with an appeal against an order of acquittal emerge;
(1) An appellate Court has full power to review, reappreciate and reconsider the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded;
(2) The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 puts no limitation, restriction or condition on exercise of such power and an appellate Court on the evidence before it may reach its own conclusion, both on questions of fact and of law;
(3) Various expressions, such as, 'substantial and Page 8 of 24 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Tue Apr 22 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Apr 22 22:19:24 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1547/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/04/2025 undefined compelling reasons', 'good and sufficient grounds', 'very strong circumstances', 'distorted conclusions', 'glaring mistakes', etc. are not intended to curtail extensive powers of an appellate Court in an appeal against acquittal. Such phraseologies are more in the nature of 'flourishes of language' to emphasize the reluctance of an appellate Court to interfere with acquittal than to curtail the power of the Court to review the evidence and to come to its own conclusion.
(4) An appellate Court, however, must bear in mind that in case of acquittal, there is double presumption in favour of the accused. Firstly, the presumption of innocence available to him under the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that every person shall be presumed to be innocent unless he is proved guilty by a competent court of law. Secondly, the accused having secured his acquittal, the presumption of his innocence is further reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by the trial court. (5) If two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the appellate court should not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial court.
7. The law with regard to acquittal appeals is well crystallized and in acquittal appeals, there is presumption of innocence in favour of the accused and it has finally Page 9 of 24 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Tue Apr 22 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Apr 22 22:19:24 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1547/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/04/2025 undefined culminated when a case ends in an acquittal. The learned Trial Court has appreciated all the evidence and when the learned Trial Court has come to a conclusion that the prosecution has not proved the case beyond reasonable doubts, the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused gets strengthened. There is no inhibition to re appreciate the evidence by the Appellate Court but if after re appreciation, the view taken by the learned Trial Court was a possible view, there is no reason for the Appellate Court to interfere in the same.
8. In light of the above settled principle of law, the evidence of the prosecution is dissected and the prosecution has examined PW1 - Babubhai Mangabhai Vasava at Exh. 12 and the witness is the complainant who has fully supported the contents of the complaint which is produced at Exh. 13 and has produced his caste certificate at Exh. 14. During the cross-examination by the learned advocate for the accused, the witness has stated that he is working for Ramjibhai Kalyanbhai Gorasiya - the owner of the land since 03.05.2006 and he is doing the Page 10 of 24 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Tue Apr 22 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Apr 22 22:19:24 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1547/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/04/2025 undefined administration of the land. Towards the north of the field of Ramjibhai is the agricultural land of the accused no. 1 and on the other side is the agricultural land of Ramjibhai where he has a bore well. The water from the well has been taken to the other well through a pipeline which is dug into the land and in the complaint, he has not stated that the accused no. 1 had hit him with a brick. The complaint was filed at about 03.00 pm and he had shown the place of offence to the Umalla Police Inspector who had recorded his statements. Near the place of incident are the fields of Ramjibhai, and Ramjibhai and Jeevkuvarba stay at Surat. 8.1 The prosecution has examined PW2 - Ramjibhai Kalyanbhai Gorasiya at Exh. 15 and the witness has stated that he has 19 acres of land in the outskirts of Bhalod village and 4 acres land in the outskirts of Prakand village where he has cultivated sugarcane crop. He has also cultivated sugarcane in survey no. 351 and the complainant - Babubhai Mangabhai Vasava looks after the lands situated in Prakand village. That he often comes for administration of the land and on 17.04.2007, he and his Page 11 of 24 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Tue Apr 22 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Apr 22 22:19:24 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1547/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/04/2025 undefined wife Jeevkuvarba had come to Prakand village and stayed for the night and on 18.04.2007 at around 08.00 am they had gone to survey no. 351 with labourers. That the hand pump was not working and the complainant - Babubhai was repairing the same and some of the labourers were spraying pesticides and his wife Jeevkuvarba was standing near some labourers who were working and at around 10.00 am the accused no. 1 came and started abusing his wife and him. That he ran towards his wife and asked the accused no. 1 why was he hurling abuses and he was told that the pipeline was broken and they should repair it and at that time the accused no. 2 also came and hurled caste slurs to the complainant and started assaulting him. They also assaulted the witness on his shoulder and the other neighbours came and the accused no. 2 hit the complainant with a brick on his right knee and one another person was also injured with the brick and the accused no. 1 caught the shirt of the witness. During the cross examination by the learned advocate for the accused the witness has stated that whenever they come to the field Page 12 of 24 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Tue Apr 22 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Apr 22 22:19:24 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1547/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/04/2025 undefined they stay at the house of the complainant and the complainant acts as per his instructions. He does not know the neighbours who had come at the time of the incident but four to five people had come and his field is near the field of the accused no. 1. The pipeline for water for his field was taken through the field of the accused no. 1 and at the time of the incident the pipeline was not leaking. The accused no. 1 had come to tell him to remove the pipeline which was put by the witness in the field of the accused no. 1 and the witness has stated that at the time of the incident the accused no. 1 had asked him to remove the pipeline and had threatened to file a civil suit in the Civil Court. 8.2 The prosecution has examined PW3 - Jeevkuvarba Ramjibhai Gorasiya and the witness is an eyewitness to the incident and was present at the place of incident and has fully supported the case of the prosecution. During the cross examination by the learned advocate for the accused the witness has stated that after the incident she does not know where Babubhai had gone and she had gone to the Umalla Police Station with her husband and at that time Page 13 of 24 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Tue Apr 22 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Apr 22 22:19:24 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1547/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/04/2025 undefined the complainant Babubhai had filed the complaint in their presence.
8.3 The prosecution has examined PW4 - Rajubhai Ratnabhai Vasava and the witness was working as a labourer in the field of Ramjibhai Kalyanbhai Garasia at the time of the incident. The witness is an eyewitness to the incident and has fully supported the case of the prosecution. During the cross examination by the learned advocate for the accused the witness has stated that he had witnessed the incident from a distance of about 15 to 20 feet and he did not intervene while the fight was going on. The witness has voluntarily stated that he was afraid and he ran away and he does not know what happened thereafter.
8.4 The prosecution has examined PW5 - Praveenbhai Danabhai Vasava at Exh. 18 and the witness has stated that on 18.04.2007 he had gone to his agricultural land situated in the outskirts of Prakand village and after doing his work in his field, he had gone to drink water at the field of Ramjibhai as there was a bore well at that place. At Page 14 of 24 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Tue Apr 22 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Apr 22 22:19:24 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1547/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/04/2025 undefined around 10.30 am the accused no. 1 was abusing the wife of Ramjibhai and the complainant Babubhai and others ran towards Jeevkuvarba. The accused no. 1 had told them that the pipeline was broken and to shut it as he had to drive his tractor and at that time Fatehsinh - the accused no. 2 came and abused the complainant and hurled caste slurs against him. Ramjibhai intervened and and saved the complainant - Babubhai from further assault. During the cross examination by the learned advocate for the accused the witness has stated that he and the complainant - Babubhai are of the same community and while the incident was going on, he did not intervene. In his police statement, he did not state that he had gone to drink water. 8.5 The prosecution has examined PW6 - Balvantbhai Bhikhabhai Vasava at Exh. 19 and the witness was working as a laborer at the time of the incident. The witness has stated that he along with Babubhai Mangabhai, Ramjibhai and his wife, Mukeshbhai Mangabhai, Rajubhai Ratnabhai, Nareshbhai and Sahdevbhai had gone to the field of Ramjibhai where sugarcane was growing and he was doing Page 15 of 24 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Tue Apr 22 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Apr 22 22:19:24 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1547/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/04/2025 undefined the field work, Rajubhai was spraying pesticides and Jeevkuvarba - the wife of Ramjibhai was standing near them. Babubhai was at the edge of the field repairing the pump and at that time the accused no. 1 came towards them and abused them. The accused no. 2 also came and told Ramjibhai that his pipeline was broken and to close it as they wanted to drive the tractor and the accused no. 2 hurled caste abuses and assaulted the complainant. During the cross examination by the learned advocate for the accused the witness has stated that the accused no. 2 does not have any agricultural land nearby and the accused no. 1 had come to tell Ramjibhai that the pipeline that was placed in his field should be removed. The field of the accused no. 1 is near the field of Balwantbhai and he and Babubhai Mangabhai are of the same community. That he does not he did not see whether the pipeline was broken or not and Babubhai - the complainant is a person of Ramjibhai.
8.6 The prosecution has examined PW7 - Madhavbhai Shanabai Vasava at Exh. 20 and the witness is the panch Page 16 of 24 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Tue Apr 22 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Apr 22 22:19:24 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1547/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/04/2025 undefined witness of the panchnama of the place of offence which is produced at Exh. 21. The witness has fully supported the case of the prosecution and during the cross examination by the learned advocate for the accused the witness has stated that he is a tractor driver and the police had come to call him between 03.00 pm and 03.30 pm and he had gone to the place of incident. He and the complainant are of the same caste and are neighbors and the complainant - Babubhai works as per the advice of Ramjibhai. 8.7 The prosecution has examined PW8 - Dr. Sureshnandan Ramnarayan Yadav at Exh. 22 and the witness was working as a Medical Officer in the Community Health Center, Umalla on 18.04.2007. The witness has stated that at around 09.40 pm - Babubhai Mangabhai Vasava resident of Prakand Taluka, Zaghadiya had come with the police yadi for treatment. In the history the patient has stated that on the same day at around 10.30 am Fatehsing Gumansing Mateida and Indrasing Mateida had assaulted him with stones and fists. On examination there was an abrasion of 1 cm x 1 cm on the left knee which was Page 17 of 24 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Tue Apr 22 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Apr 22 22:19:24 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1547/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/04/2025 undefined reddish in color and the injured had complained of pain on the back of the chest and left shoulder was painful on movement. The injuries were simple in nature and could be by a hard and blunt substance and would recover within 5 to 7 days if no complication occurs. The witness has produced the medical certificate at Exh. 24. During the cross examination by the learned advocate for the accused the witness has stated that the pain as stated by the patient could be imaginary and injury no. 1 could also be self-inflicted.
8.8 The prosecution has examined PW9 - Bahadurbhai Nathubhai Patel at Exh. 27 and the witness was working as the Executive Magistrate at Zhagadia and he has produced the caste certificate of the complainant at Exh. 28. The witness has stated that the caste certificate was issued on the basis of the school leaving certificate and the copy of the school leaving certificate is produced at Exh. 29. During the cross examination by the learned advocate for the accused the witness has stated that it is not necessary to take an affidavit from the person who comes to take the Page 18 of 24 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Tue Apr 22 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Apr 22 22:19:24 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1547/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/04/2025 undefined caste certificate and in the ration card and voting card the name mentioned is Babubhai Mangubhai Vasava. The certificate also states Babubhai Mangubhai Vasava and besides the ration card, he has not taken any other evidence about the parents, brothers and sisters of the complainant. That he has not recorded the statements of any witnesses regarding the caste of the complainant and had not taken the electoral role and at what number the name of the complainant is mentioned. That no spot verification regarding the caste certificate was done and no record was taken from the Talati of Prakand village for giving the certificate of the complainant. The caste certificate was issued on the same day of the application. That the applicant had filed the application and his statement was not recorded by any Investigating Officer regarding the caste certificate of the complainant. 8.9 The prosecution has examined PW10 - Bahadurbhai Mohanbhai Vasava at Exh. 30 and the witness was the In- charge Police Sub-Inspector of Umalla Police Station on 18.04.2007 when the complainant came to record his Page 19 of 24 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Tue Apr 22 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Apr 22 22:19:24 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1547/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/04/2025 undefined complaint which was recorded and registered at Umalla Police Station II C.R. No. 21 of 2007 under Sections 323, 34, 504 and 114 of IPC and Section 3(1)(10) of the Atrocity Act.
8.10 The prosecution has examined PW11 - Narendrasinh Hathubhai Raijara at Exh. 34 and the witness is the Investigating Officer who has narrated in detail the entire procedure undertaken by him during investigation. The witness has stated that at the time of the incident he was working as the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Ankleshwar Division and on the basis of the order of the Superintendent of Police, Bharuch he had taken over the investigation of the offense registered at Umalla Police Station II C.R. No. 21/2007. During the cross examination by the learned advocate the witness has stated that he had taken over the investigation on 18.04.2007 at 19.45 hours from Umalla Police Station and in the panchnama produced at Exh. 25 his signature is not seen. That the panchnama has to be signed at the place of incident where it is drawn and he has to affix his signature in the presence of the Page 20 of 24 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Tue Apr 22 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Apr 22 22:19:24 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1547/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/04/2025 undefined panch witnesses. The panchnama produced at Exh. 25 was prepared at night. The witness Jeevkuvarba has not stated that the accused were abusing her and has not stated what abuses were being hurled towards her. That he has not recorded the statements of any owners of the neighboring fields and has not recorded the statements of any laborers who were working in those fields at the time of the incident. The place of incident is a privately owned place and he has not made any investigation about the caste certificate of the complainant. That till the accused were arrested he did not take any documentary evidence about the caste of the complainant and the water pipeline was not seized as a muddamal during investigation.
9. On reappreciation of the entire evidence of the prosecution, the facts that have come on record are that PW2 - Ramjibhai Kalyanbhai Gorasiya had two fields one towards the west and one towards the south of the field of the accused no. 1 and PW2 Ramjibhai had taken a water pipe connection from one of his fields to the other field by an underground pipe through the field of the accused no. 1. Page 21 of 24 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Tue Apr 22 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Apr 22 22:19:24 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1547/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/04/2025 undefined On the date of incident the accused no. 1 went to tell PW2 - Ramjibhai Kalyanbhai Gorasiya and his wife Jeevkuvarba Ramjibhai Gorasiya to remove the pipeline as he had to till his land with the tractor and the pipe was broken and the complaint has been filed by the complainant - Babubhai Mangabhai Vasava who was tilling the land of Ramjibhai Kalyanbhai Gorasiya. What has emerged on record is that the accused no. 1 had come to tell Ramjibhai Kalyanbhai Gorasiya to remove the pipeline and at that time the complainant Babubhai Mangabhai Vasava was at the edge of the field repairing a pump. There was no reason for the accused no. 1 to abuse and hurl caste slurs against the complainant - Babubhai Mangabhai Vasava as he had no dispute with the accused no. 1. The dispute about the pipeline that the accused no. 1 had was with Ramjibhai Kalyanbhai Gorasiya. In the deposition of the witness, the contradictions have come on record in detail and the complainant has not stated in the complaint that he was assaulted with a brick and the presence of the accused no. 2 at the place of incident is doubtful and not proved beyond Page 22 of 24 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Tue Apr 22 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Apr 22 22:19:24 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1547/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/04/2025 undefined reasonable doubts. It has also emerged on record that the complainant - Babubhai Mangabhai Vasava being a member of the Schedule Tribe was tilling the land of PW2 - Ramjibhai Kalyanbhai Gorasiya and was fully acting as per the advice of PW2 - Ramjibhai Kalyanbhai Gorasiya. The learned Trial Court has concluded that the accused no. 1 had merely gone to tell PW2 - Ramjibhai Kalyanbhai Gorasiya to remove the pipeline but the complaint has been filed by the complainant on behalf of Ramjibhai Kalyanbhai Gorasiya to pressurize the accused. Moreover, the Investigating Officer was not authorized to investigate the offence under the Atrocity Act by any notification of the Government and the place where the incident had occurred was a private place and not a public place.
10. In view of the settled position of law in the decisions of Chandrappa (supra), the learned Trial Court has appreciated the entire evidence in proper perspective and there does not appear to be any infirmity and illegality in the impugned judgment and order of acquittal. The learned Trial Court has appreciated all the evidence and this Court Page 23 of 24 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Tue Apr 22 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Apr 22 22:19:24 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1547/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/04/2025 undefined is of the considered opinion that the learned Trial Court was completely justified in acquitting the accused of the charges leveled against them. The findings recorded by the learned Trial Court are absolutely just and proper and no illegality or infirmity has been committed by the learned Trial Court and this Court is in complete agreement with the findings, ultimate conclusion and the resultant order of acquittal recorded by the learned Trial Court. This Court finds no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment and order and the present appeal is devoid of merits and resultantly, the same is dismissed.
11. The impugned judgement and order of acquittal passed by the learned Special Judge, Fast Track Court No. 5, Bharuch Camp at Ankleshwar in Special Atrocity Case No. 34/2007 on 25.02.2008, is hereby confirmed.
12. Bail bond stands cancelled. Record and proceedings be sent back to the concerned Trial Court forthwith.
(S. V. PINTO,J) VASIM S. SAIYED Page 24 of 24 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Tue Apr 22 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Apr 22 22:19:24 IST 2025