Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Sagar Rameshbhai Sorathiya on 1 August, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1453/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/08/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL (AGAINST ACQUITTAL) NO. 1453 of 2017
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE S.V. PINTO
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting No
==========================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
SAGAR RAMESHBHAI SORATHIYA & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS. C.M. SHAH, APP for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR DIPEN K DAVE(3296) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1
MRS REKHA H KAPADIA(2246) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE S.V. PINTO
Date : 01/08/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. The appeal is filed by the appellant State under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the judgement and order of acquittal passed by the learned 4th Additional Special Judge, Rajkot (hereinafter referred to as "the learned Trial Court") in Special Case (Atro) No. 2/2010 on 29.07.2017, whereby, the learned Trial Court has acquitted the respondent for the offence punishable under Sections 323, 352 and 504 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 3(1)(10) of Schedule Caste and Schedule Page 1 of 17 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Tue Aug 05 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Aug 05 22:05:37 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1453/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/08/2025 undefined Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as "the Atrocity Act" for short). 1.1 The respondent is hereinafter referred to as "the accused" as he 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 - Sujataben wife of Priyankarbhai Shakiya and the accused were neighbours and the accused wanted to place a door in the wall facing the house of the complainant and the officers of the Municipal Corporation did not permit the accused to place the door and the accused had a doubt that the complainant had informed the officers of the Municipal Corporation about the door and hence, on 17.12.2009 between 17.00 hours and 18.00 hours, the accused went to the house of the complainant and caught her neck, pulled her gown, hurled caste slurs against her and took a stone in his hand and attempted to hit the complainant with the stone. The complainant filed the complaint at the Malaviyanagar Police Station, Rajkot Page 2 of 17 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Tue Aug 05 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Aug 05 22:05:37 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1453/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/08/2025 undefined City under Section 323, 352 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(1)(10) of the Atrocities Act which came to be registered as Rajkot city Malaviyanagar Police Station I
- C.R. No. 182 of 2009.
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 Court of the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Rajkot and as the said offences against the accused were exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the case was committed to the Sessions Court, Rajkot as per the provisions of Section 209 of Code of Criminal Procedure and the case was registered as Special Case (Atro) No. 2/2010.
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. 11 was framed against the accused and the statement of the accused was recorded at Page 3 of 17 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Tue Aug 05 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Aug 05 22:05:37 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1453/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/08/2025 undefined Exh. 12, wherein, the accused denied the contents of the charge and the entire evidence of the prosecution was taken on record.
2.4 The prosecution examined 14 witnesses and produced 14 documentary evidences on record in support of their case. After the closing pursis was filed by learned APP, the further statement of the accused under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was recorded, wherein, the accused denied the evidence of the prosecution and refused to step into the witness box but examined 2 witnesses in support of his case. After the arguments of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and the learned advocate for the accused were heard, the learned Trial Court by the impugned judgement and order was pleased to acquit the accused from the charges levelled against him.
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 Page 4 of 17 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Tue Aug 05 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Aug 05 22:05:37 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1453/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/08/2025 undefined 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 respondent. The case has been proved beyond reasonable doubt and the prosecution has successfully established the case against the respondent 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. C.M. Shah for the appellant State, learned advocate Mr. Shubham Dave for learned advocate Mr. Dipen Dave for the respondent no. 1 and learned advocate Ms. Rekha Kapadia for respondent no. 2. Perused the impugned judgement and order of acquittal and have reappreciated the entire evidence of the prosecution on record of the case.
Page 5 of 17 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Tue Aug 05 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Aug 05 22:05:37 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1453/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/08/2025 undefined
5. Learned APP Ms. C.M. Shah and learned advocate Ms. Rekha Kapadia for the respondent no. 2 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. 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. Shubham Dave for learned advocate Mr. Dipen Dave for the respondent no. 1 has submitted that the learned Trial Court has appreciated the evidence and passed the impugned judgement and order and no interference is required hence, the appeal may be rejected.
6. 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 Page 6 of 17 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Tue Aug 05 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Aug 05 22:05:37 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1453/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/08/2025 undefined 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.
7. To bring home the charge against the accused, the prosecution has examined PW1 - Sujataben Priyankarbhai Shakiya at Exh. 14 and the witness is the complainant who has narrated the facts as stated in the complaint produced at Exh. 15. The complainant has produced her caste certificate at Exh. 17 and a copy of the Gazette at Exh. 18, wherein, the complainant was earlier known as Ushaben Channabhai Solanki and thereafter, she had changed her name to Sujata Priyankar Sakhiya. In the evidence, it has emerged that the complainant was following Buddhist religion and the caste certificate was issued from Ahmedabad. In the cross-examination, the complainant has admitted that on the day of the incident, the employees had Page 7 of 17 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Tue Aug 05 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Aug 05 22:05:37 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1453/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/08/2025 undefined come to fix the gas pipelines behind the house of the accused and the complainant had an altercation with them and she had objected to the same and hence, the employees who had come to fit the gas pipeline had gone away. 7.1 PW2 - Tusharbhai Govindbhai Padaya examined at Exh. 26 and PW3 - Jashminbhai Vrujlal Dangar examined at Exh. 28 are the panch witnesses of the panchnama of the place of offence which is produced at Exh. 27 7.2 PW4 - Virajbhai Rajubhai Solanki examined at Exh. 29 is the panch witness of the arrest panchnama which is produced at Exh. 30 7.3 PW5 - Bhavnaben Vinodbhai Parmar examined at Exh. 34 is an eyewitness as per the case of the prosecution but the witness has not supported the case of the prosecution and she has been declared hostile. During the cross- examination by the learned advocate for the accused, the witness has stated that she has studied up to class 4 or 5 and the complainant is of her caste. When the police had come, she had gone to the house of the complainant but she does not know what procedure was done by the police. She Page 8 of 17 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Tue Aug 05 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Aug 05 22:05:37 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1453/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/08/2025 undefined does not know any neighbours and the police were outside of the house of the complainant. The witness has also admitted that the incident has not taken place in her presence and she was at her house at the time of the incident.
7.4 PW6 - Hiraben Tejabhai Parmar examined at Exh. 35 is a neighbour of the complainant and she has supported the case of the prosecution. During the cross-examination, she has stated that her house is the third house from the house of the complainant and earlier she had not seen the accused. She has not seen where the accused is residing and she was at the place of incident for about ten minutes but during that time the police did not come. The witness has also admitted that while she came the incident had already concluded and no incident had occurred after she had gone to the spot.
7.5 PW7 - Vimlaben Rameshchandra Vaghela examined at Exh. 36 is the neighbour and eyewitness to the incident and she has supported the case of the prosecution but during the cross-examination she has admitted that she does not Page 9 of 17 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Tue Aug 05 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Aug 05 22:05:37 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1453/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/08/2025 undefined know where the accused resides and at the time of the incident, the family members of the complainant were not present. The police did not call her to the Police Station and she was not called by the police at any time. 7.6 PW8 - Vipulbhai Kishorebhai Makwana examined at Exh. 37 is the friend of the son of the complainant but he has stated that he was at his friend's house and thereafter, he had gone home. He was with his friend i.e. the son of the complainant till 7.30 pm in the evening and he did not go to the hospital. He did not see the complainant injured and he does not know what was the complaint about. 7.7 PW9 - Sinotbhai Priyankarbhai Shakiya examined at Exh. 38 is the son of the complainant and during the cross- examination he has admitted that in the morning when the employees had come to lay the gas pipeline, he was not present and on the day of the incident his father was in Rajkot. His father is working in the bank and he was never called to the Police Station for recording his statement. 7.8 PW10 - Aaluben Kanabhai Muchhadiya examined at Exh. 39 is a neighbour of the complainant but she has not Page 10 of 17 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Tue Aug 05 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Aug 05 22:05:37 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1453/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/08/2025 undefined 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.
7.9 PW11 - Bahadursinh Ravubha Jadeja examined at Exh. 40 is the PSO who has registered the complaint. 7.10 PW12 - Dr. Dineshbhai Maganlal Chauhan examined at Exh. 46 is the Medical Officer who has examined the complainant on 17.12.2009 at Yash Hospital. The witness has produced the injury certificate of the complainant at Exh. 47 and has stated that Sujataben Priyankarbhai Shakiya had come to the hospital having a soft tissue injury on the right foot and an injury on the right knee. The medical certificate at Exh. 47 does not give any history except that it was an assaulted injury and the approximate period of recovery was 6 to 8 weeks. During the cross- examination the witness has admitted that he has not mentioned the time when the patient had come to the hospital, the history or the weapon that was used. The witness has also admitted that the injuries on the Page 11 of 17 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Tue Aug 05 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Aug 05 22:05:37 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1453/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/08/2025 undefined complainant could be self-inflicted injuries also. 7.11 PW13 - Babubhai Kanjibhai Chaudhary examined at Exh. 48 is the PSI who has recorded the complaint of the complainant and during the cross-examination he has admitted that the complainant did not bring her caste certificate when she had come to file the complaint. 7.12 PW14 - Vijaysinh Laxmansinh Chauhan examined at Exh. 50 is the Investigating Officer who has narrated all the procedure undertaken by him during investigation. During cross-examination the witness has admitted that there was a dispute about the gas pipeline on the day of the incident but he has not verified the same from the Municipal Corporation about the gas pipeline. Even in the complaint, the complainant has stated about the gas pipeline but the same has not been investigated and the complainant did not submit her caste certificate at the time of filing of the complaint or while her statement was recorded. The caste certificate of the complainant has not been verified from the Social Welfare Officer at Ahmedabad and he has not made any investigation regarding the Gazette. Page 12 of 17 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Tue Aug 05 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Aug 05 22:05:37 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1453/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/08/2025 undefined
8. After the closing pursis was filed by the learned APP at Exh. 53, the further statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 wherein the accused denied all the evidence of the complainant and refused to step into the witness box but stated that he wanted to examine two witnesses in his defence and further stated that he was innocent and a false case has been filed against him. The accused has further stated that the complainant has made illegal construction and the Municipal Corporation has given a notice to the complainant for removal of the illegal construction and as the complainant had a doubt on him, a false complaint has been filed.
9. The accused has examined Defence Witness No. 1 - Jayendrabhai Kantilal Balambia at Exh. 55 and the witness is the Assistant Town Planner in Rajkot Municipal Corporation. The witness has stated that a notice to remove the illegal construction was given to Priyankarbhai Shakya on 10.03.2011 and an encroachment was also made by Page 13 of 17 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Tue Aug 05 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Aug 05 22:05:37 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1453/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/08/2025 undefined Priyankarbhai and an application was filed by Rameshbhai Soratia on 03.06.2011 against Priyankarbhai Shakiya. 9.1 Defence Witness No. 2 - Bharatbhai Chhaganbhai Babariya examined at Exh. 63 is a member of Nehrunagar Housing Cooperative Society and he has stated that the society had given a no objection certificate to Nainaben Rameshbhai Soratia which is produced at Exh. 65.
10. On minute appreciation of the entire evidence of the prosecution, it has emerged on record that there is a civil dispute pending between the parties about the area between their houses and on the day of the incident, in the morning, the employees had come to fix the gas pipeline but the complainant had an altercation with them and the employees had gone off without laying the gas pipeline. It has also emerged on record that there are civil disputes pending between the parties and a notice was given to the husband of the complainant for removal of the illegal construction that is being done by them. The complainant has in the examination in chief stated that she had sustained a fracture on her right leg and she had taken Page 14 of 17 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Tue Aug 05 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Aug 05 22:05:37 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1453/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/08/2025 undefined treatment for 15 days at Yash Hospital but if the medical evidence is perused, the Medical Officer - PW12 - Dr. Dineshbhai Maganlal Chauhan examined at Exh. 46 has stated that the complainant had a soft tissue injury on the right foot and an injury on the knee joint and she was treated as an OPD patient on 17.12.2009. She was not treated as an indoor patient and there is no iota of evidence that the complainant had sustained a fracture on her right leg. If the entire evidence is perused, there is exaggeration in the evidence of the complainant and the eyewitnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution, even though they were neighbours of the complainant and as per the case of the prosecution, had witnessed the incident. The caste certificate of the complainant is also not proved and the Investigating Officer has clearly stated that he did not verify the caste certificate of the complainant and she had not submitted the caste certificate at the time of filing of the complaint as also when her further statement was recorded. Moreover, the incident has occurred because of the gas pipeline that was to be laid between the houses of Page 15 of 17 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Tue Aug 05 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Aug 05 22:05:37 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1453/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/08/2025 undefined the complainant and the accused but the Investigating Officer has categorically stated that he did not inquire anything about any gas pipeline that was to be laid behind the house of the accused.
11. In view of the settled position of law in a catena of decisions of the Apex Court, 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 Page 16 of 17 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Tue Aug 05 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Aug 05 22:05:37 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1453/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/08/2025 undefined and order and the present appeal is devoid of merits and resultantly, the same is dismissed.
12. The impugned judgement and order of acquittal passed by the learned 4th Additional Special Judge, Rajkot (hereinafter referred to as "the learned Trial Court") in Special Case (Atro) No. 2/2010 on 29.07.2017, is hereby confirmed.
13. Bail bond stands cancelled. Record and proceedings be sent back to the concerned Trial Court forthwith.
Sd/-
(S. V. PINTO,J) VASIM S. SAIYED Page 17 of 17 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Tue Aug 05 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Aug 05 22:05:37 IST 2025