Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Jyantibhai Rameshji Majirana on 22 April, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1822/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/04/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1822 of 2008
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE S.V. PINTO
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting No
==========================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
JYANTIBHAI RAMESHJI MAJIRANA & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS. JIRGA JHAVERI, APP for the Appellant(s) No. 1
BAILABLE WARRANT SERVED for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No.
1,2,3,4,5
MR VICKY B MEHTA(5422) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3,4,5
MS DIPMALA S DESAI(6596) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 6
==========================================================
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 Additional Sessions Judge, Second Fast Track Court, Himmatnagar (hereinafter referred to as "the learned Trial Court") in Special (Atrocity) Case No. 45/2007 on Page 1 of 23 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Wed Apr 23 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 23 22:08:35 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1822/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/04/2025 undefined 28.03.2008, whereby, the learned Trial Court has acquitted the respondents for the offence punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 325, 323 and 504 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 Somabhai Ranchodbhai Bhambhi residing at Vaktapur was working as a Security Guard in the New Market Yard at Himmatnagar. On 08.07.2007 at around 09.30 pm, all the accused formed an unlawful assembly and armed themselves with sticks and while Somabhai Ranchodbhai Bhambhi was checking the persons who were entering and exiting the New Market Yard at the main gate, they shouted at him and asked him why was he checking their tiffins even though he was of a Bhambhi Caste. The accused no. 1 Page 2 of 23 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Wed Apr 23 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 23 22:08:35 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1822/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/04/2025 undefined caught hold of the collar of the shirt of Somabhai Ranchodbhai Bhambhi and assaulted him with a stick on his right hand and his right hand sustained a fracture. The accused nos. 2 and 3 assaulted Somabhai Ranchodbhai Bhambhi with sticks. The accused no. 4 assaulted him with fists and the accused no. 5 hit his tiffin on the head of Somabhai Ranchodbhai Bhambhi. All the accused hurled abuses and caste slurs against Somabhai Ranchodbhai Bhambhi and his wife Shantaben - wife of Somabhai Ranchodbhai Bhambhi filed the complaint on 13.07.2007 at the Himmatnagar Town Police Station which was registered at Himmatnagar Town Police Station I - C.R. No. 80 of 2007 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 504 of the IPC, Section 135 of the BP Act and Sections 3(1)(10) of the Atrocities Act. 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 Chief Judicial Magistrate, Himmatnagar and as the said offences against the accused were exclusively triable by the Court of Page 3 of 23 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Wed Apr 23 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 23 22:08:35 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1822/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/04/2025 undefined Sessions, the case was committed to the Special Court, Himmatnagar as per the provisions of Section 209 of Code of Criminal Procedure and the case was registered as Special (Atrocity) Case No. 45/2007.
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. 5 was framed against the accused and the statements of the accused were recorded at Exhs. 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 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 Shantaben Somabhai Bhambhini 13
2 2 Somabhai Ranchhodbhai Bhambhini 16
3 3 Bipinbhai Dhulabhai Parmar 18
4 4 Dr. Bharatkumar Kalidas 21
5 5 Vipulkumar Punjabhai Parmar 24
Page 4 of 23
Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Wed Apr 23 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 23 22:08:35 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1822/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/04/2025
undefined
6 6 Jagdishbhai Kohyabhai Solanki 25
7 7 Karansinh Dalpatsinh 26
8 8 Lalabhai Pirabhai Vanzara 27
9 9 Ahmedbhai Nasirbhai Dhapa 29
10 10 Lavjibhai Kanabhai Pranam 31
DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE
Sr. No. Particulars Exh.
1 Complaint 14
2 Caste Certificate 15
3 Agreement 17
4 Panchnama of place of offence 19
5 X-ray 22
6 Treatment certificate 23
7 Panchnama of weapons recovered 28
8 Publication of District Magistrate 32
9 Publication of District Magistrate 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 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 Page 5 of 23 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Wed Apr 23 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 23 22:08:35 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1822/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/04/2025 undefined 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 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.
Page 6 of 23 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Wed Apr 23 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 23 22:08:35 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1822/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/04/2025 undefined
4. Heard learned APP Ms. Jirga Jhaveri for the appellant State and learned advocate Mr. Vicky Mehta for respondent nos. 1 to 5 and learned av Ms. Dipmala Desai for respondent no. 6. 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. Jirga Jhaveri and learned advocate Ms. Dipmala Desai for the respondent no. 6 - original complainant have taken this Court through the entire evidence of the prosecution on record of the case and have submitted that the complainant has fully supported the facts of his complaint and the case is proved beyond reasonable doubts by the prosecution. 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.
5.1 Learned advocate Mr. Vicky Mehta for the respondent nos. 1 to 5 has submitted that the evidence has been properly appreciated by the learned Trial Court and no interference is required in the impugned judgement and Page 7 of 23 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Wed Apr 23 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 23 22:08:35 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1822/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/04/2025 undefined order.
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:
"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".Page 8 of 23 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Wed Apr 23 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 23 22:08:35 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1822/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/04/2025 undefined 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 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 Page 9 of 23 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Wed Apr 23 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 23 22:08:35 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1822/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/04/2025 undefined 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 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.
Page 10 of 23 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Wed Apr 23 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 23 22:08:35 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1822/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/04/2025 undefined
8. In light of the above settled principle of law, the evidence of the prosecution is dissected and the prosecution has examined PW1 - Shantaben Somabhai Bhambhi at Exh. 13. The witness is the complainant and the wife of the injured Somabhai Ranchodbhai Bhambhi and she has stated that her husband was working as a Security Guard and all the accused had assaulted him. That her son-in-law had given her the information about the incident and on the day of the incident her son-in-law had gone for his work and on the next day her husband was taken to the hospital. He had sustained a fracture on his right hand and he had to take five stitches on his head. She filed the complaint which is produced at Exh. 14. During the cross examination by the learned advocate for the accused, the witness has stated that she has no personal knowledge about the incident and she reached the hospital at around 03.00 pm on the next day. That when she had gone to the Police Station her son-in-law and two sons were with her and she did not give her caste certificate to the police at the time of filing of the complaint and the Page 11 of 23 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Wed Apr 23 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 23 22:08:35 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1822/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/04/2025 undefined police did not ask her for the caste certificate. Her son-in- law is also working as a Security Guard at the same place and his duty is from 08.00 am to 08.00 pm. That she had not seen the market yard and after the incident her husband is no longer working at Nava Market Yard, Himmatnagar. The witness has also produced the caste certificate at Exh. 15.
8.1 The prosecution has examined PW2 - Somabhai Ranchhodbhai Bhambhini Exh. 16 and the witness is the injured who has stated that on the date of the incident he was working as a Watchman and he was kept for job as a watchman by Vipulbhai Punjabhai Parmar on a monthly salary of Rs. 2000/-. Vipulbhai had a contract of the market yard and the contract is produced at Exh. 17. His duty was from 08.00 pm to 08.00 am on the next morning and on the date of the incident he was standing as a Security Guard and was checking the tiffins of the persons who were exiting the market. The accused had altercation with him and hurled caste abuses at him and assaulted him and he had sustained a fracture on his right hand Page 12 of 23 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Wed Apr 23 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 23 22:08:35 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1822/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/04/2025 undefined below the wrist. He also had an injury on his head as he was beaten with a tiffin on the head. That his son-in-law came with his tiffin and witnessed the incident and shouted and the accused also threatened to kill his son-in-law and hence, he went away. That Vipulbhai came at around 10.00 pm and told him that he would take him to the hospital on the next morning but Vipulbhai did not come and his son- in-law came with a rickshaw and took him straight to Himmatnagar Police Station. He was admitted to Civil Hospital, Himmatnagar and operated upon his hand. He does not know which persons had assaulted him and their contractor was Jayantibhai Bhatt who caught the collar of his shirt and the witness has identified the muddamaal sticks and tiffin. During the cross-examination by the learned advocate for the accused the witness has stated that Vipulbhai Punjabhai Parmar is his son-in-law and relative of his caste and contractor Jayantibhai and Jayanti Manjhi Rana are two different persons. About 300 labourers are working in the market yard and after the incident he has not gone for his job. That his son-in-law Page 13 of 23 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Wed Apr 23 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 23 22:08:35 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1822/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/04/2025 undefined has also left the job. All the accused are of the Bhil Community and he has not stated in his statement before the police that the accused had threatened to kill his son- in-law.
8.2 The prosecution has examined PW3 - Bipinbhai Dhulabhai Parmar Exh. 18 and the witness is the son-in- law of the complainant and the injured who has stated that on 08.03.2007 at around 09.30 pm he had taken the tiffin and gone to the main gate and the fight was going on. His father-in-law had fallen down and he was being assaulted with sticks and the tiffin by the labourer and he went and intervened but he was told to go away or they would kill him and he informed the superior officer about the same. He was told that his father-in-law will be taken to the hospital but he was not taken to the hospital and hence, in the morning he took a rickshaw and went and took his father-in-law to the hospital. They had gone to the Police Station and his father-in-law was operated upon on his hand. During the cross-examination by the learned advocate for the accused, the witness has stated that Page 14 of 23 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Wed Apr 23 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 23 22:08:35 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1822/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/04/2025 undefined Vipulbhai is his relative and when he went to meet his father-in-law on the date of the incident, he did not speak anything to his father-in-law. That he went away home and at the time of the incident, he was on leave. The tiffin shown to him is easily available in the market. 8.3 The prosecution has examined PW4 - Dr. Bharatkumar Kalidas at Exh. 21 and the witness is the Medical Officer who was working at Sir Pratap General Hospital, Himmatnagar, District Sabarkantha on 09.03.2007, when the injured Somabhai Ranchhodbhai Parmar was brought for treatment. The witness has stated that he was admitted as an indoor patient and was discharged on 27.03.2007 at 11.00 am. In the history, he had stated that he was assaulted with lathis and tiffins by seven to eight persons on 08.03.2007 at 09.00 pm at the gate of the market yard. On examination, the following injuries were found on him.
1. Contusion on right posterior aspect of forearm, 5 cm x 2 cm in size, red in colour.
2. Contusion on posterior aspect of right side of the chest, lower part, 7 cm x 2 cm in size, red in colour. Page 15 of 23 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Wed Apr 23 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 23 22:08:35 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1822/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/04/2025 undefined
3. Abrasion on right nostril, irregular in size and shape.
4. Abrasion on right parietal region, irregular size and shape.
5. Contusion on right hypochondriac and epigastric region, 10 cm x 2 cm in size, red in colour.
6. Abrasion on left side of the chest, irregular in size and shape. 7. CLW on right temporal region, 5 cm x 2 cm into muscle deep/in direction.
8. DTS on right forearm and the x-ray of right forearm with elbow showed fracture of right ulna. The injuries could be caused by hard and blunt object and during the cross examination by the learned advocate for the accused, the witness has stated that he did not do any follow up treatment of the injured and injury nos. 1 to 7 in the medical certificate produced at Exh. 23 were simple in nature and injury no. 8 was a fracture. That if a person was assaulted with a stick on the hand, there would be a mark of the stick.
8.4 The prosecution has examined PW5 - Vipulkumar Punjabhai Parmar at Exh. 24 and the witness is the contractor of the Market Yard at Himmatnagar and has Page 16 of 23 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Wed Apr 23 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 23 22:08:35 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1822/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/04/2025 undefined stated that on the date of the incident, he was called to the office by his supervisor who told him that there was an altercation between the guards and the labourers and he went to the spot and saw that his guard was sitting and he had sustained some injuries. The guard told him that he was not much injured and he was taken to the hospital but he was not injured. He does not know why the altercation had taken place. The witness has not supported the case of the prosecution and has been declared hostile and cross examined at length by the learned APP but he has not supported the case of the prosecution. During the cross examination by the learned advocate for the accused, the witness has stated that he was informed from the market yard that guard Somabhai was drunk and he has no personal knowledge about the incident. 8.5 The prosecution has examined PW6 - Jagdishbhai Kohyabhai Solanki at Exh. 25 and the witness was working as the Security Supervisor at the Market Yard, Himmatnagar on the day of the incident. The witness has stated that between 08.00 pm to 08.30 pm, he was seated Page 17 of 23 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Wed Apr 23 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 23 22:08:35 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1822/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/04/2025 undefined in the office of Dadu Security near the market yard and when he was called, he went to the place which was the main gate and inquired from Ganibhai Clerk about the incident who told him that somebody had assaulted his guard and he had gone towards the backside of the building and Somabhai did not tell him who had assaulted him. The witness has not supported the case of the prosecution and has been declared hostile and even though as per the case of the prosecution, the witness was an eyewitness to the incident, he has not supported the case of the prosecution.
8.6 The prosecution has examined PW7 - Karansinh Dalpatsinh at Exh. 26 and the witness was working as a Security Guard in the market yard on the date of the incident. The witness has stated that he was working in the shed at the behind portion of the market yard and the clerk at the gate called him and told him that some guard was assaulted and to go attend duty at the gate but when he went to the gate, there was no one and he had called Vipulbhai and he saw Somabhai was injured. Somabhai Page 18 of 23 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Wed Apr 23 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 23 22:08:35 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1822/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/04/2025 undefined had told him that he was checking the tiffins and hence, he was beaten but he does not know the persons who had assaulted them and he did not see who had assaulted Somabhai. The witness has not supported the case of the prosecution and has been declared hostile and has been cross-examined by the learned APP but nothing to support the case of the prosecution has come on record. 8.7 The prosecution has examined PW8 - Lalabhai Pirabhai Vanzara at Exh. 27 and PW9 - Ahmedbhai Nasirbhai Dhapa at Exh. 29 and both the witnesses are the panch witnesses of the arrest panchnama by which the accused were arrested which is produced at Exh. 28. Both the witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution and have merely stated that they had affixed their signature on a ready panchnama as per the say of the police.
8.8 PW10 - Lavjibhai Kanabhai Pranam examined at Exh. 31 is the Investigating Officer who has narrated in detail all the procedure that was undertaken by him during investigation. During the cross-examination by the learned Page 19 of 23 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Wed Apr 23 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 23 22:08:35 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1822/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/04/2025 undefined advocate for the accused the witness has stated that during investigation it was found that the complainant was of the Bhil community and hence, he was investigating the matter as Bhil community is a Scheduled Tribe.
9. On reappreciation of the entire evidence of the prosecution, the complainant PW1 - Shantaben Somabhai Bhambi is not an eyewitness to the incident and she has stated that her son-in-law had told her about the incident. Her son-in-law PW3 - Bipinbhai Dhodabhai Parmar has in his deposition stated that he did not speak anything when he had gone to the place of incident with his father-in-law and after the incident he had run away and did not take his father-in-law to the hospital. There are many contradictions in the versions of PW3 - Bipinbhai Dhodabhai Parmar and the injured PW2 - Somabhai Ranchodbhai Bhambi and the injured has not identified the accused during trial. Moreover, as per the case of the prosecution PW5 - Vipulbhai Punjabhai Parmar, PW6 - Jagdishbhai Koyabhai Solanki and PW7 - Karansinh Dalpatsinh were all eyewitnesses to the incident but all of them have turned Page 20 of 23 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Wed Apr 23 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 23 22:08:35 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1822/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/04/2025 undefined hostile and have not supported the case of the prosecution and hence, there is no independent eyewitness who has deposed in favor of the complainant. Moreover, PW2 - Somabhai Ranchodbhai Bhambhi has not specifically stated the role of any one person and he has not stated which of the accused had hurled caste slurs or threats at him. The incident has occurred at around 09.30 in the night and even though his son-in-law, PW3 - Bipinbhai Dhudhabhai Parmar and PW5 - Vipulkumar Punjabhai Parmar his superior and had employed him have not taken him to the hospital and he has gone to the hospital on the next day at around 11.15 am. Even before the Medical Officer, he has not named the persons and in the entire evidence of the prosecution, it has come on record that the injured did not know the accused and during investigation, no Test Identification Parade was conducted for identification of the accused by the Executive Magistrate.
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 Page 21 of 23 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Wed Apr 23 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 23 22:08:35 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1822/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/04/2025 undefined 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 Additional Sessions Judge, Second Fast Track Court, Himmatnagar in Special (Atrocity) Case No. 45/2007 on 28.03.2008 on 19.04.2010, is hereby confirmed.
Page 22 of 23 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Wed Apr 23 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 23 22:08:35 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1822/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/04/2025 undefined
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 23 of 23 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Wed Apr 23 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 23 22:08:35 IST 2025