Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Yajuvendrasinh Pruthvisinh Jadeja on 22 April, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1174/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/04/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1174 of 2010
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE S.V. PINTO
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting No
==========================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
YAJUVENDRASINH PRUTHVISINH JADEJA & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
Ms. Dhwani Tripathi, APP for the Appellant(s) No. 1
BAILABLE WARRANT UNSERVED for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1
KETULKUMAR V PATEL(10121) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 3,4
RULE SERVED for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
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 (Atrocity) & Additional Sessions Judge, Second Fast Track Court, Himmatnagar Camp at Idar, (hereinafter referred to as "the learned Trial Court") in Page 1 of 22 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Wed Apr 23 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 23 22:08:23 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1174/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/04/2025 undefined Special (Atrocity) Case No. 40/2008 on 19.04.2010, whereby, the learned Trial Court has acquitted the respondent for the offence punishable under Sections 504, 506(2) 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 During the pendency of the appeal, the respondent no. 1 has expired and his death certificate has been produced on record by the Additional Senior Judge, Sabarkantha @ Himmatnagar dated 31.12.2022 which shows that the respondent no. 1 has expired on 26.10.2015, hence the appeal qua the respondent no. 1 stands abated. 1.2 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 The complainant - Khatrabhai Manjibhai Kharadi was a resident of Nana Samera village of Bhiloda Taluka.
Samera Gram Panchayat consisted of three villages namely Page 2 of 22 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Wed Apr 23 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 23 22:08:23 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1174/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/04/2025 undefined Nana Samera, Mota Samera and Rangpur Chhapra and in December 2006, the Gram Panchayat elections were held and Kalpanaben - the wife of the accused no. 1, Yajuvendrasinh Pruthvisinh Jadeja was elected as the Deputy Sarpanch of Samera Gram Panchayat. On 18.03.2008, a meeting of the Samera Gram Panchayat was kept and the complainant - Khatrabhai Manjibhai Kharadi was going for the meeting along with the other members of the Panchayat including Arvindbhai Khemabhai Dodiyar, Harishbhai Nathabhai Kharadi, Maganbhai Khatubhai Kharadi, Somabhai Pannabhai Kharadi, etc. and at around 12.00 noon, while they reached near the field of Nanjibhai Martabhai Kharadi, all the accused armed with sticks cordoned the complainant and others; and abused them and hurled caste slurs and told the complainant that he should not be the Sarpanch and they would kill him if he came into the village. They restrained him from going for the meeting and the other members who were with him tried to pacify the accused but they could not be pacified and the complainant immediately called Shamlaji Police Station and Page 3 of 22 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Wed Apr 23 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 23 22:08:23 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1174/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/04/2025 undefined Head Constable - Lakshmanbhai and four policemen came to the place of incident and gave them protection and brought them to the Samera Gram Panchayat. The complainant gave an application at the Shamlaji Police Station but no action was taken and even on the next day i.e. on 19.03.2008, a written application was given at the Shamlaji Police Station but the police did not take any action and hence, the complainant filed a private complaint before the Court of the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bhiloda under Sections 504, 506(2) and 114 of the IPC and Section 3(1)(10) of the Atrocities Act on 28.03.2008. The learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bhiloda was pleased to pass an order under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and sent the complaint towards Shamlaji Police Station for investigation. After the report was filed, the complaint came to be registered at Shamlaji Police Station, M Case No. 5/08 under Sections 504, 506(2) and 114 of IPC and Section 3(1)(10) of the Atrocities Act. 2.2 The Investigating Officer recorded the statements of the connected witnesses and seized the necessary Page 4 of 22 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Wed Apr 23 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 23 22:08:23 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1174/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/04/2025 undefined documents and after completion of investigation, a charge- sheet came to be filed before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bhiloda and as the said offences against the accused were exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the case was committed to the Sessions Court, Sabarkantha at Himmatnagar as per the provisions of Section 209 of Code of Criminal Procedure and the case was registered as Special (Atrocity) Case No. 40/2008.
2.3 The accused was duly served with the summons and the accused appeared before the learned Trial Court and it 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. 3 was framed against the accused and the statements of the accused were recorded at Exhs. 4, 5, 6 and 7, 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.
Page 5 of 22 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Wed Apr 23 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 23 22:08:23 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1174/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/04/2025 undefined ORAL EVIDENCE Sr. No. PW Name of the witness Exh. 1 1 Khatrabhai Manjibhai Kharadi 14 2 2 Maganbhai Khatrabhai Kharadi 19 3 3 Arjunsinh Javansinh Chauhan 20 4 4 Somabhai Dhanabhai Kharadi 24 5 5 Harishbhai Nathabhai Kharadi 25 6 6 Arvindbhai Nanjibhai Kharadi 27 7 7 Arvindbhai Khemabhai Dodiyar 29 8 8 Khumansinh Nanabhai Damor 32 DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE Sr. No. Particulars Exh. 1 Complaint 15 2 Caste certificate 18 3 Station Diary 20 4 Report 21 5 FTP Message 23 6 Panchnama of the place of offence 28 7 Order of TDO 33 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 Page 6 of 22 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Wed Apr 23 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 23 22:08:23 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1174/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/04/2025 undefined 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 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 Page 7 of 22 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Wed Apr 23 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 23 22:08:23 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1174/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/04/2025 undefined 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 appellant State and learned advocate Mr. K.V. Patel 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 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 Page 8 of 22 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Wed Apr 23 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 23 22:08:23 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1174/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/04/2025 undefined & 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:
"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 Page 9 of 22 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Wed Apr 23 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 23 22:08:23 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1174/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/04/2025 undefined 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 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.
Page 10 of 22 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Wed Apr 23 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 23 22:08:23 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1174/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/04/2025 undefined
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 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 - Khatrabhai Manjibhai Kharadi at Exh. 14 and the witness is the complainant who has narrated all the facts as stated by him in the complaint. The complaint is produced at Exh. 15 and during the cross- examination by the learned advocate for the accused, the Page 11 of 22 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Wed Apr 23 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 23 22:08:23 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1174/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/04/2025 undefined witness has stated that the people of the village and the members of the District Panchayat and of the Gram Panchayat had filed applications against him regarding misappropriation of the development works before the District Panchayat and Taluka Panchayat and a no confidence motion was passed by all the members of the Panchayat against him. That a meeting for no confidence motion against him was held on 18.03.2008 at Mota Samera at the Gram Panchayat Office and the Taluka Panchayat Officer and the District Supply Officer and other police personnel were present there. That on the basis of this no confidence motion, the Taluka Development Officer had taken the charge of the Sarpanch from him and had ordered it to be with Deputy Sarpanch Kalpanaben Yajuvendrasinh Jadeja.
8.1 The prosecution has examined PW2 - Maganbhai Khatrabhai Kharadi Exh. 19 and the witness is the son of the complainant who has supported the case of the prosecution. During the cross-examination by the learned advocate for the accused, the witness has stated that on the Page 12 of 22 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Wed Apr 23 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 23 22:08:23 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1174/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/04/2025 undefined date of the incident, a meeting to being no confidence motion against his father was held at the Gram Panchayat Office and he and his father have cases filed under Section 302 and 435 of the IPC against him. That he was in judicial custody in both the cases.
8.2 The prosecution has examined PW3 - Arjunsinh Javansinh Chauhan Exh. 20 and the witness was working as the PSO at Shamlaji Police Station and he has registered the complaint on the basis of the order of the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bhiloda. During the cross- examination by the learned advocate for the accused, the witness has stated that the complainant did not come to the Police Station to file his complaint and no written application was filed by the complainant prior to filing of the complaint. That no complaint regarding any telephone was also filed by the complainant at the Police Station. 8.3 The prosecution has examined PW4 - Somabhai Dhanabhai Kharadi at Exh. 24 and the witness is an eyewitness to the incident who was going along with the complainant - Khatrabai Maganbhai Kharadi for the Page 13 of 22 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Wed Apr 23 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 23 22:08:23 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1174/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/04/2025 undefined meeting along with others. The witness has stated that he was an eyewitness to the incident and during the cross- examination by the learned advocate for the accused, the witness has stated that he and the complainant are relatives and he had come to the Court with the complaint but he does not know the accused by names and he did not record the names of the accused in his statement before the Investigating Officer. That when the police were recording his statement, Khatrabhai had recorded his statement and told the police about his statement and all the members of the Panchayat including Deputy Sarpanch Kalpanaben Yajuvendrasinh had brought a no-confidence motion against the complainant. That the members of the Gram Panchayat and the people of the village had filed applications against the complainant for misappropriation of development works.
8.4 The prosecution has examined PW5 - Harishbhai Nathabhai Kharadi at Exh. 25 and the witness is also an eyewitness to the incident who was going along with the complainant for the meeting. The witness has supported Page 14 of 22 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Wed Apr 23 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 23 22:08:23 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1174/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/04/2025 undefined the case of the prosecution and during the cross- examination by the learned advocate for the accused, the witness has stated that he has not given the names of the other accused except the accused no. 1. During the cross- examination by the learned advocate for the accused, the witness has stated that he has not named the other accused except the accused no. 1 in his statement before the police and at the place of incident, a number of persons were on the road. That he has a murder case and a case regarding burning of house against him pending before the Court and the complainant is not working as the Sarpanch presently as there is a no-confidence motion against him and he has been removed as the Sarpanch.
8.5 The prosecution has examined PW6 - Arvindbhai Nanjibhai Kharadi at Exh. 27 and the witness is the panch witness of the panchnama of the place of offence which is produced at Exh. 28. During the cross-examination by the learned advocate for the accused, the witness has stated that the complainant is his relative and he had come to the court along with the complainant that he does not know Page 15 of 22 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Wed Apr 23 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 23 22:08:23 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1174/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/04/2025 undefined what was written in the panchnama and he had merely affixed his signature on the panchnama which is produced at Exh. 28.
8.6 The prosecution has examined PW7 - Arvindbhai Khemabhai Dodiyar at Exh. 29 and the witness has stated that on the date of the incident, he was going along with the complainant and others and when they reached the field of Nanjibhai, some 2-3 persons came but no incident had taken place. That they had gone for the meeting and thereafter the accused no. 1 and the complainant had verbal altercation and he left the place. The witness has not supported the case of the prosecution and has been declared hostile and has been cross-examined at length by the learned APP but nothing to support the case of the prosecution has come on record. During the cross- examination by the learned advocate for the accused, the witness has stated that he is a member of the Mota Samera Gram Panchayat and there is a no-confidence motion against the complainant as there are allegations of misappropriation against him. The complainant and the Page 16 of 22 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Wed Apr 23 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 23 22:08:23 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1174/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/04/2025 undefined accused have a dispute between them regarding the election of the Gram Panchayat.
8.7 The prosecution has examined PW8 - Khumansinh Nanabhai Damor at Exh. 32 and the witness is the Investigating Officer who has narrated in detail the procedure undertaken by him during investigation of the offence. During the cross-examination by the learned advocate for the accused, the witness has stated that a no- confidence motion was brought against the complainant and the Taluka Development Officer, Bhiloda had by a written order removed the complainant from the post of the Sarpanch and the order of the Taluka Development Officer is produced at Exh. 33. That he had not recorded the statements of the persons who were present at the meeting including the Taluka Development Officer, the Talati Cum Mantri and the Supply Officers and no telephone call was made by Khatrabhai Manjibhai on the date of the incident at Shamlaji Police Station. During investigation, no application given by Khatrabhai Manjibhai to Shamlaji Police Station was found and near the place of incident is Page 17 of 22 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Wed Apr 23 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 23 22:08:23 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1174/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/04/2025 undefined the water supply office and quarters and he has not recorded the statements of any persons residing in the quarters or the watchman at that place. No statements of independent witnesses were recorded during investigation and only the statements of the relatives of the complainant have been recorded.
9. On reappreciation of the entire evidence of the prosecution, it has come on record that there was a dispute regarding the Gram Panchayat elections between the complainant and the accused and Kalpanaben - the wife of the accused no. 1 - Yajuvendrasinh Pruthvirajsinh Jadeja was the Deputy Sarpanch. The members including the Deputy Sarpanch had brought a no confidence motion against the Sarpanch and there were allegations of irregularities and misappropriation of the development works of the Gram Panchayat and the complainant was removed from the post of the Sarpanch by a written order dated 02.05.2008 of the Taluka Development Officer which is produced at Exh. 33. On 18.03.2008, a meeting was called for bringing a no confidence motion against the Page 18 of 22 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Wed Apr 23 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 23 22:08:23 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1174/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/04/2025 undefined Sarpanch and as per the say of the complaint, the incident has occurred on the same day but PW7 - Arvindbhai Khemabhai Dodiyar who was along with the complainant and others and was also a member of the Samira Gram Panchayat and was going for the meeting has stated that no incident as stated by the complainant had occurred. Moreover, as per the say of the complainant immediately as the incident occurred, he had telephoned Shamlaji Police Station and Head Constable - Lakshmanbhai and four other policemen had come to the place of incident and had given them protection and had taken them to the Gram Panchayat Office but during investigation no such telephone call records have been produced on record and the Investigating Officer - PW8 - Khumansinh Nanabhai Damor has categorically stated that no such telephone call details were found during investigation. Moreover, the complainant has also stated that on 19.03.2008 he had given a written application to the Shamlaji Police Station but during investigation no such written application was found by the Investigating Officer, hence, the say of the Page 19 of 22 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Wed Apr 23 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 23 22:08:23 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1174/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/04/2025 undefined complainant that the incident had occurred and he had immediately thereafter telephoned the Shamlaji Police Station and policemen had come to escort him and the others to the Gram Panchayat Office and that he had given an application on the next day regarding the incident at the Shamlaji Police Station, is not proved. Moreover, as per the say of the complainant all the accused were armed with sticks but none of them were assaulted and there are no independent witnesses examined before the learned Trial Court. It has come on record that there are the quarters of government employees and the watchman nearby the place of incident and if any such incident would have taken place they would have seen and heard the quarrel but their evidence has not come on record. The Investigating Officer has only recorded the statements of the relatives of the complainant and no witnesses including the Taluka Development Officer, the Talati Cum Mantri and the District Supply Officers who were present at the meeting have been examined before the learned Trial Court. Page 20 of 22 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Wed Apr 23 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 23 22:08:23 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1174/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/04/2025 undefined
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 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 (Atrocity) & Additional Sessions Judge, Second Fast Track Court, Himmatnagar Page 21 of 22 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Wed Apr 23 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 23 22:08:23 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1174/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/04/2025 undefined Camp at Idar in Special (Atrocity) Case No. 40/2008 on 19.04.2010, 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 22 of 22 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Wed Apr 23 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 23 22:08:23 IST 2025