State Of Gujarat vs Dhirubhai Khusalbhai Patel

Gujarat High Court

State Of Gujarat vs Dhirubhai Khusalbhai Patel on 2 August, 2025

Author: Gita Gopi

Bench: Gita Gopi

                                                                                                                  NEUTRAL CITATION




                            R/CR.A/2028/2004                                     JUDGMENT DATED: 02/08/2025

                                                                                                                   undefined




                                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                                               R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2028 of 2004


                       FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:


                       HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE GITA GOPI

                       and

                       HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. M. RAVAL

                       ==========================================================
                                    Approved for Reporting                      Yes            No
                                                                                               √
                       ==========================================================
                                                      STATE OF GUJARAT
                                                            Versus
                                               DHIRUBHAI KHUSALBHAI PATEL & ANR.
                       ==========================================================
                       Appearance:
                       MR ROHANKUMAR RAVAL, APP for the Appellant(s) No. 1
                       MR DJ BHATT(164) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1,2
                       ==========================================================
                         CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE GITA GOPI
                               and
                               HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. M. RAVAL

                                                     Date : 02/08/2025
                                                    ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER : HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE GITA GOPI)

1. The appeal has been filed by the State under Section 378(1)(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ("Cr.P.C." for short) against the judgment of acquittal dated 12.5.2004 passed by the learned Special Judge, Fast Track Court no.3, Surat in Special Atrocity Case no.75 of 1992. The charge was under Sections 302, 325, 342, 504, 114 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ("IPC" for short) and Section 3(1) Page 1 of 18 Uploaded by MAULIK R. PANDYA(HC00205) on Mon Aug 04 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 04 22:42:45 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2028/2004 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/08/2025 undefined

(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities Act), 1989 ("Atrocities Act" for short).

2. The complaint as briefly noted is that the complainant-Revabhai Machabhai lodged a complaint on 6.10.1992 at about 1 O'Clock in the afternoon stating that he along with Ramanbhai Khatrabhai Chaudhary had gone to jungle for the purpose of collecting wood for fire and at about 3.00 p.m., Beat Guard of the Forest Department Dhirubhai Patel from Jetpur circle of forest office, approached the complainant and started abusing him and beating the complainant with the stick. He sustained injuries on his body. The witness - Keniben Matarbhai and other persons tried to intervene and pacify the Beat Guard. The accused persons took the complainant and Ramanbhai Khatrabhai Chaudhary to Jetpur gate and confined them for the whole night and thereafter, released them on 7.10.1992 on the next day evening. Both the complainant and witness went to Primary Health Center for taking treatment. The Doctor after examining the complainant found the internal injuries over the intestine. The patient was therefore referred to Surat.

3. The complaint was filed as CR no.I-138/1992. At Surat, the complainant was operated on 8.10.1992, where during the course of treatment, he died. Accordingly, the offence under Section 302 IPC and Page 2 of 18 Uploaded by MAULIK R. PANDYA(HC00205) on Mon Aug 04 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 04 22:42:45 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2028/2004 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/08/2025 undefined Section 3(1)(x) of the Atrocities Act were added in the report and investigation was carried on and thereafter, the charge-sheet came to be filed.

4. Mr. Rohankumar Raval, learned APP has submitted that there was clear evidence of the complainant himself which was recorded by Kodarbhai Lakhmabhai Katara- PW10 when he was present at Mandvi Police Station and he had received a wardhi by PSO - Chitaman Ratan of Mandvi Primary Health Center and Janvajog entry no.24 of 1992 was registered on 7.10.1992 at about 13.15 hrs. and after necessary entry in the station diary, the investigation was handed over to him and he had visited the patient at the Primary Health Center, where Revabhai Machabhai gave his statement, which came to be registered as CR no.I-138/1992 under Sections 325, 323, 504 IPC at Mandvi Police Station. The learned APP submitted that the witness PW10 himself has recorded the complaint and there was no reason not to believe the said statement and further submitted that the injured PW1 - Ramanbhai Khatrabhai Chaudhary has referred stating that the accused Dhirubhai had beaten him and Revabhai Machabhai with the stick as well as gun and PW1 himself has sustained injury on head, at the hands of Patil with a stick. The Village people had taken them home and they were brought to the hospital for treatment. Prior to that, they were detained and in the next morning, at about 7.00 a.m., they were released. The learned APP submitted Page 3 of 18 Uploaded by MAULIK R. PANDYA(HC00205) on Mon Aug 04 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 04 22:42:45 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2028/2004 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/08/2025 undefined that Ramanbhai Khatrabhai Chaudhary very specifically state that Revabhai Machabhai had sustained injury on the left leg as well as waist. The accused Dhirubhai had given him blow with the stick as well as with gun on the waist. The learned APP submitted that the learned Judge has failed to appreciate the evidence of the eye-witness coupled with the fact that inquest panchnama was drawn at Exh.18 reflecting the injuries of the deceased. PW2- Dr. Ilyas Ishak Mohammad Shaikh gave a description of the injuries as sustained by the deceased and had noted that there were about fifteen stitches on the abdomen area. The cause of death was peritonitis due to blunt force trauma to the abdomen with perforation of glium. The learned APP has submitted that this injury had become fatal, which has been the cause of death and therefore, Section 302 IPC was invoked. Mr. Raval further submitted that eye- witness - PW3 was Pohniben who had seen the accused beating both the deceased as well as the injured. She had identified them. She was the person who was the occurrence witness as she was there grazing her cattles. The injury certificate of Dr. Navinchandra Chaudhary as PW5 clarifies the initial treatment, which was given at Referral Primary Health Center, Mandvi, where the Doctor has referred to injuries of both the persons at Exhs.33 and 34. The PSO - PW6 has recorded the complaint Mark 5/1 and has given evidence of the station diary entry no.24/92 dated 7.10.1992 and during the treatment, the injured Page 4 of 18 Uploaded by MAULIK R. PANDYA(HC00205) on Mon Aug 04 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 04 22:42:45 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2028/2004 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/08/2025 undefined complainant died and therefore, PW7 had moved the Court with a report to invoke Section 302 IPC. The investigation was further carried on by PW9 and further stated that PW8 - Jivanbhai Desai had also given a report for invoking the provisions under the Atrocities Act. The certificate regarding the caste of the deceased was recorded and the map was drawn of the place of incident. PW9 had also recorded a further statement of the foresters and charge-sheet was filed on 30.11.1992. Mr. Raval further stated that the Defence Witness (DW1) Bachubhai Das was examined and submitted that the learned Trial Court Judge had given much importance to the Defence Witness and had ignored the evidence which were relevant and prima facie on the record by way of eye-witnesses and the injured witness.

5. After hearing Mr. Rohankumar Raval, learned APP for the State, we perused the appreciation of the evidence by the learned Judge and the conclusion thereof. The case as could be noted was that on 6.10.1992, during afternoon, the deceased as well as the injured witness both had gone for collecting wood for fire from the forest. The prosecution case is that Keniben was grazing her cattles in the jungle, at that time, the Beat Guard - Dhirubhai had come before the complainant and had started abusing him and had questioned the deceased as to why they were collecting woods from the jungle and it was alleged that Beat Guard - Dhirubhai gave a blow with Page 5 of 18 Uploaded by MAULIK R. PANDYA(HC00205) on Mon Aug 04 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 04 22:42:45 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2028/2004 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/08/2025 undefined the stick to the complainant on his left thigh and another blow on the back. Further the Beat Guard also gave blow to the witness-Ramanbhai Khatrabhai Chaudhary on his face. The case is that Keniben and another person has tried to pacify them. However, the Beat Guard detained both the persons and only on the next day of morning i.e. 7.10.1992, they were released. On taking primary treatment, thereafter was referred to Surat hospital, where during the course of treatment, he died and therefore, Section 302 IPC was invoked and further provisions of Atrocities Act were made applicable. The learned Judge while appreciating the evidence read the complaint Exh.42, where the learned Judge observed that in the complaint, it has nowhere been noted that the injured complainant had stated that he was insulted by his caste. Nothing was there to degrade him. No utterance were made to lower down his dignity. The deposition of Ramanbhai Khatrabhai Chaudhary was noted, wherein too, he had not referred to any statements made or any castiest utterance to lower down the dignity.

6. Referring to the evidence of Pohniben, the learned Judge observed that she in her deposition has not stated of any such utterance, which would have insulted the caste of the deceased. The learned Judge has observed that the certificate of accused as well as the complainant being of Scheduled Tribe has been produced, but since the charge has been Page 6 of 18 Uploaded by MAULIK R. PANDYA(HC00205) on Mon Aug 04 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 04 22:42:45 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2028/2004 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/08/2025 undefined framed under Section 3(1)(x) of the Atrocities Act, the trial proceedings was conducted, however, observing the fact that since the complainant as well as the accused belonged to the Scheduled Tribe, the learned Judge did not find any case under the Atrocities Act and therefore, answered the point of determination in negative.

7. The observation of the learned Judge would be relevant to the fact that the certificates of the caste of the both complainant and the accused shows that they belonged to the Scheduled Tribe. Even otherwise, on the face of the record, if the deposition is appreciated, then the complaint does not state of any abusive words, nor the witness state of any such utterance from the accused and hence, we are of the opinion that the observation of the learned Judge in connection with the conclusion reached for the offence punishable under the Atrocities Act is not illegal and there is no patent illegality to turn down the observation so recorded.

8. The deposition of Ramanbhai Khatrabhai Chaudhary was recorded and according to him, they were in jungle for collecting woods for fire and at that time, there were quarrel with the people of forest department. He specified that it was with the Beat Guard, but he could not recollect the name of the Beat Guard. While asking him to identify the accused, he stated that since the incident was more Page 7 of 18 Uploaded by MAULIK R. PANDYA(HC00205) on Mon Aug 04 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 04 22:42:45 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2028/2004 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/08/2025 undefined than eleven years and hence, he could not recollect. However, he stated that he was beaten by stick and by gun. He stated that the injury which was sustained on head and hands with the stick was by Patil Saheb. The learned Judge observed that there was no such accused named as Patil. The witness further stated that the Village people had taken them home and when they were brought at the dispensary, and prior to bringing them at dispensary, there was quarrel. They were taken from the gate at 7.00 a.m. He also stated that Revabhai Machabhai was injured on the left leg and on the stomach area and according to the witness, Dhirubhai had beaten him with the stick and thereafter, with the gun. The learned Judge observed that there was a case by the forest department for the theft of woods valued about Rs.400/-. The witness had admitted that they were penalized by fine for the theft and has also admitted that the case of theft was filed against them by the accused. The accused was on his duty at that time and further affirmed that while seeing the forest people, he and deceased both had started running away. The witness affirmed in his cross-examination that he has not stated in his police statement that the accused were holding gun, nor has stated that they were beaten by the handle of the gun. He stated that the deceased was an alcoholic. He was taken to the Police Station by Makabhai to file the case. Makabhai was the representative of the Village and he also stated Page 8 of 18 Uploaded by MAULIK R. PANDYA(HC00205) on Mon Aug 04 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 04 22:42:45 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2028/2004 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/08/2025 undefined that Makabhai was not in good terms with people of forest. He further stated that since it has been long time, he cannot now recognize the people from forest department. The learned Judge did not find the evidence of the injured witness as reliable and did not find it credible to believe it. The witness no.3 at Exh.24 Pahniben who was there in the forest stated that Revabhai Machabhai and Ramanbhai Khatrabhai Chaudhary had gone in the forest for collecting woods. She stated that Revabhai Machabhai was beaten by two persons and they were brought at the gate, were continuously beating, but the witness stated that no police statement was recorded and she further stated that she was raising her cattles in the jungle and therefore, by moving around, she had seen the incident. The learned Judge was not ready to believe the witness as an eye-witness since found that she had stated in the cross-examination, she had come to know of the incident of beatings sustained by the injured as well as the deceased. She clarified that she is a hear-se witness. She has not even identified the stick in the deposition. The learned Judge has also made certain observations with regard to the fact that she was tutored during the deposition and the learned Judge thus was not ready to believe Ramanbhai Khatrabhai Chaudhary and Dhaniben as eye-witness since both of them were not supporting the prosecution case. Witness Arunbhai Kansara was declared hostile who was the Panch for the production of the Muddamal stick.

NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2028/2004 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/08/2025 undefined

9. Witness PW5 - Dr. Navinchandra Revabhai Chaudhary was examined at Exh.32 and according to the witness, on 7.10.1992 at about 1.45, Ramanbhai Khatrabhai Chaudhary had come without any police yadi and he had informed that some unknown person had beaten him with stick on 6.10.1992. The Doctor had recorded the injuries and had also noted that Revabhai Machabhai too had come on 7.10.1992 at 1.30 p.m. without police yadi and the history given was that some unknown person had beaten him on 6.10.1992. The injury was found on the stomach with hard and blunt substance. The Doctor examined him and found the abdomen area hard and the intestine and also observed the burst of the intestine. The patient had also informed him of urinal bleeding. The Doctor had not observed any external injuries on the deceased Revabhai Machabhai and only found injury on the left thigh, back which were bruises. The Doctor admitted that there were no contusions and only the internal injury would be sufficient for the cause of death in the ordinary course of nature.

10. Appreciation of the Doctor's evidence as noted in the cause of death would be that the death had occurred because of the perforation in the intestine and that has resulted into its bursting and the injured thus lost his life. The death is during the course of the treatment. The learned Judge has further noted about the postmortem by Dr. Ilyas Page 10 of 18 Uploaded by MAULIK R. PANDYA(HC00205) on Mon Aug 04 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 04 22:42:45 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2028/2004 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/08/2025 undefined Mohammad Shaikh and accordingly, Revabhai Machabhai was operated in the Civil Hospital and thereafter, the Doctor had examined him and thus, the Doctor could not state about the external injuries on the stomach prior to the operation. The Doctor who conducted the operation had not been examined to verify or to identify the injuries sustained which could be considered as an external injury, while the Medical Officer - Navinchandra Chaudhary in his deposition states that both the injuries are not correlated. He admitted that there were abrasions on the dead body and no contusions or contusional wound could be found, as could be said to have been sustained because of the larger force of the stick. The only injury which could be observed were bruises which could be by mild beating of stick. In the cross-examination, the evidence has come on record that it was surgical wound and no injury was found on the vital part of the body and hence, the learned Judge positively recorded that the evidence shows that except surgical wound, there were no grievous injuries and if at all any person is beaten harshly with the stick on the abdomen, then there are all possibility of contusions or bruises and if the person had worn clothes, then no such injuries could be found. The Doctor could not state about the condition of the internal organs of the deceased prior to the incident and the Doctor further stated that such injuries were not sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. The Page 11 of 18 Uploaded by MAULIK R. PANDYA(HC00205) on Mon Aug 04 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 04 22:42:45 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2028/2004 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/08/2025 undefined deposition of the Doctor were not found corroborative. The PSO-Chitaman Ratan at Exh.35 stated that he had recorded the complaint as given to him. He referred to Mark 5/1 as a complaint, but could not state as to who had written the complaint and the author of the handwriting was not known to him. He stated that Mark 5/1 was not recorded by him, while in the cross-examination, he stated that the telephone entry was noted at Exh.36 in the station diary, which was given by the Doctor, but he could not recollect the name of the Doctor. The information was recorded on a simple piece of paper.

11. Exh.37 is PW7 - Chhipa Ratan Patil, ASI who had recorded the statement of the witnesses, has drawn the panchnama of the place of offence and he received a wireless message on the death of the injured from Surat Civil Hospital and therefore, had put a requisition to the JMFC for invoking Section 302 IPC. The investigating officer - Jivanbhai Desai

- PW8 was also examined who had collected the certificate of the injured belonging the Scheduled Tribe community. The panchnama of the Muddamal stick. PW9 Kuberbhai Desai stated that on 20.10.1992, he had gone to the place of offence and had recorded the statement of RFO D.K. Patel and thus, the charge-sheet was filed.

12. The learned Judge on observation of the evidence has found that the evidence were not sufficient enough Page 12 of 18 Uploaded by MAULIK R. PANDYA(HC00205) on Mon Aug 04 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 04 22:42:45 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2028/2004 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/08/2025 undefined to establish that the accused had beaten the deceased Revabhai Machabhai and Ramanbhai Khatrabhai Chaudhary. There were no corroborating external injuries to prove the death. The learned Judge has also noted the evidence of the Defence Witness at Exh.51 - Bachubhai Das who on 20.12.1988 was at the Jetpur Village in forest department as a Round Forest Officer and he found that on that day, Revabhai Machabhai was cutting the teak wood and was selling them after the theft and arrested them in presence of two panchas. He had taken Revabhai Machabhai at the place and before the Panchas, the stump of the tree was recorded of teak and the pieces of the wood at a distance of 200 mtrs., were counted. The axe and saw were was recovered and Panchnama at Mark 50/2 was drawn before the Panchas which bears the signature of Revabhai Machabhai and his thumb impression and thus, was put in evidence at Exh.52. The penalty was recovered of Rs.400/-. The receipt of the same were also placed in evidence at Exh.55. The learned Judge on the observation of the evidence of the RFO Bachubhai Das and the receipt book at Exh.54 and 55 had come to the conclusion that Revabhai Machabhai and Ramanbhai Khatrabhai Chaudhary had gone to the jungle for stealing the woods and therefore, for their false defence, has filed a complaint.

13. The evidence as elaborated by the learned Judge do establish this fact that a case has been created by Page 13 of 18 Uploaded by MAULIK R. PANDYA(HC00205) on Mon Aug 04 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 04 22:42:45 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2028/2004 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/08/2025 undefined the deceased as well as the injured, where they in fact were found stealing the teak wood from the forest and when the complaint was found, a false complaint appears to have been lodged against the defence. Since a conclusive view has been taken by the learned Trial Court Judge on the appreciation of the evidence, we do not find any perversity or illegality for us to place a contrary view and upset the conclusion of the learned Judge as laid down in the case of Darshan Singh v. State of Punjab, (2010) 2 SCC 333, wherein it has been observed as under:-

"61. In a case of acquittal, if the trial court's view is a possible or plausible view, then the Appellate Court or the High Court would not be justified in interfering with it. It is the settled legal position that there is presumption of innocence and that presumption is further fortified with the acquittal of the accused by the trial court. The Appellate Court or the High Court would not be justified in reversing the judgment of acquittal unless it comes to a clear conclusion that the judgment of the trial court is utterly perverse and, on the basis of the evidence on record, no other view is plausible or possible than the one taken by the Appellate Court or the High Court."

14. It is settled position that there is presumption of innocence and that presumption is further fortified with the acquittal of the accused by the learned Trial Court.

NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2028/2004 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/08/2025 undefined

15. In the case of Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka, (2007) 4 SCC 415, it has been observed as under:-

"41. Recently, in Kallu v. State of M.P. [(2006) 10 SCC 313 : (2006) 3 SCC (Cri) 546 : AIR 2006 SC 831] this Court stated: (SCC pp. 317-18, para 8) "8. 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." (emphasis supplied)

42. From the above decisions, in our considered view, the following general principles regarding powers of the appellate court while dealing with an appeal against an order of acquittal emerge:

NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2028/2004 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/08/2025 undefined (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 emphasise 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 is 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.

NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2028/2004 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/08/2025 undefined (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."

16. In the case of H.D. Sundara v. State of Karnataka reported in (2023) 9 SCC 581 Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:

8. In this appeal, we are called upon to consider the legality and validity of the impugned judgment [State of Karnataka v. H.K. Mariyappa, 2010 SCC OnLine Kar 5591] rendered by the High Court while deciding an appeal against acquittal under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short "CrPC"). The principles which govern the exercise of appellate jurisdiction while dealing with an appeal against acquittal under Section 378CrPC can be summarised as follows:

8.1. The acquittal of the accused further strengthens the presumption of innocence;

8.2. The appellate court, while hearing an appeal against acquittal, is entitled to reappreciate the oral and documentary evidence;

8.3. The appellate court, while deciding an appeal against acquittal, after reappreciating the evidence, is required to consider whether the view taken by the trial court is a possible view which could have been taken on the basis of the evidence on record;

8.4. If the view taken is a possible view, the appellate court cannot Page 17 of 18 Uploaded by MAULIK R. PANDYA(HC00205) on Mon Aug 04 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 04 22:42:45 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2028/2004 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/08/2025 undefined overturn the order of acquittal on the ground that another view was also possible; and 8.5. The appellate court can interfere with the order of acquittal only if it comes to a finding that the only conclusion which can be recorded on the basis of the evidence on record was that the guilt of the accused was proved beyond a reasonable doubt and no other conclusion was possible."

17. In view of the observations made, we find that the conclusion of the learned Judge acquitting the accused is on appropriate appreciation of the evidence. In the result, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. The impugned judgment of acquittal dated 12.5.2004 passed by the learned Special Judge, Fast Track Court no.3, Surat in Special Atrocity Case no.75 of 1992 is hereby confirmed. Bail bond, if any, stands cancelled. Registry is directed to send the record and proceedings back to the Trial Court forthwith.

(GITA GOPI,J) (P. M. RAVAL, J) Maulik Page 18 of 18 Uploaded by MAULIK R. PANDYA(HC00205) on Mon Aug 04 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 04 22:42:45 IST 2025