Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Manubhai Hathesing Vahoniya on 2 August, 2025
Author: A.S. Supehia
Bench: A.S. Supehia
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/851/2004 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/08/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 851 of 2004
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D. M. VYAS
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
MANUBHAI HATHESING VAHONIYA & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS MAITHILI MEHTA, APP for the Appellant(s) No. 1
NOTICE NOT RECD BACK for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1,2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D. M. VYAS
Date : 02/08/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D. M. VYAS)
1. Assailing the judgment dated 01/05/2003 of the learned Joint District Judge and Additional Sessions Judge, (2 nd Fast Track Court), Panchmahal at Dahod in Sessions Case No.82 of 1999 on the file of the said court whereby respondent nos.1 and 2 who are accused nos.1 and 2 in the said case (hereinafter referred to as A-1 and A-2) were acquitted for the Page 1 of 12 Uploaded by PATEL ILA KANTIBHAI(HC00194) on Wed Aug 06 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Aug 06 23:04:41 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/851/2004 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/08/2025 undefined charges levelled against them, the instant appeal has been preferred by the State.
2. Facts of the prosecution case, in brief, are as follows:
2.1. The complainant Rajubahi Madiabhai is resident of village Devas. He was serving as a driver in State Transport.
That on the day of incident, at about 11:30 hours, he was the driver of the S.T. Bus bearing registration no.C.I.F.-230 on Ali Rajpur- Dahod route. That at about 1:45 hours, the S. T. Bus passed through Garbada. That at a distance of 4 k.m. from Garbada, seven to eight persons of Adivasi community were standing on the road and hence the complainant slowed down the S.T. Bus. That the aforesaid persons pelted stones and damaged the front side of the bus. That one of the stone hit a lady passenger namely Savitaben (hereinafter referred as 'the deceased') sitting by the side of the conductor and she succumbed to the injuries. That one child also sustained injuries as a result of pelting of stones. Thereafter the complainant stopped the bus at village Kharva and filed complaint with the police for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 143, 147 and 148 of the Indian Penal Code and Page 2 of 12 Uploaded by PATEL ILA KANTIBHAI(HC00194) on Wed Aug 06 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Aug 06 23:04:41 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/851/2004 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/08/2025 undefined Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act.
3. After completion of the investigation, the police has filed charge-sheet against the accused for the aforesaid offences and the case was committed to the concerned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Garbada.
4. As the case was exclusively triable by the sessions division, the case was committed to the learned Joint District Judge and Additional Sessions Judge, (2 nd Fast Track Court), Panchmahal at Dahod. The trial court has framed charges for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 143, 147 and 148 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act against the accused and read over to them. The accused denied commission of any such offences and claimed to be tried.
5. During the course of the trial, the prosecution got examined PW-1 to PW-8 witnesses and got marked twelve exhibits to substantiate its case against the accused.
6. On submissions of the closing pursis, further statement Page 3 of 12 Uploaded by PATEL ILA KANTIBHAI(HC00194) on Wed Aug 06 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Aug 06 23:04:41 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/851/2004 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/08/2025 undefined of the accused under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. was recorded with regard to incriminating circumstances made against the accused in the evidence rendered by the prosecution and they have denied the same.
7. At the culmination of the trial, after considering both oral and documentary evidence on record, as the accused found not guilty for any of the aforesaid charges levelled against them, acquitted the accused for the aforesaid charges by impugned judgment.
8. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant-State has preferred the present appeal against the said judgment of acquittal.
9. We have heard learned Additional Public Prosecutor Ms.Maithili Mehta at length for the State and also perused the record and proceedings and considered the evidence on record.
10. Learned APP for the appellant-State submitted that the learned Judge ought to have believed the evidence of the complainant Rajubhai Madiabhai who was examined at Page 4 of 12 Uploaded by PATEL ILA KANTIBHAI(HC00194) on Wed Aug 06 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Aug 06 23:04:41 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/851/2004 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/08/2025 undefined Exh.22. He has stated in his evidence that the accused no.1 was one of the persons who pelted stones at the S.T. Bus. Thus, the complainant has clearly identified the accused no.1. Learned APP has further submitted that the complainant Rajubhai supported the prosecution case and fully corroborated the complaint produced on record. Learned APP further submitted that the prosecution has examined Dr.Babulal Badriprasad Mittal, who conducted postmortem of the deceased and was examined at Exh.6. Learned APP has submitted at length facts of the cause of death of the deceased and vehemently argued that the injury caused to the deceased were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. She has further submitted that medical witness opined that the said head injury was possible by way of stone pelting or caused by blunt and hard substance. She has further submitted that the judgment and order of acquittal is contrary to law and evidence on record and therefore deserves to be quashed and set aside and lastly prayed to allow this appeal.
11. Before dealing with the contentions of learned APP, it would be appropriate to analyze the relevant ocular and Page 5 of 12 Uploaded by PATEL ILA KANTIBHAI(HC00194) on Wed Aug 06 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Aug 06 23:04:41 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/851/2004 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/08/2025 undefined documentary evidences of the prosecution witnesses.
12. The prosecution has examined PW-1 Dr. Babulal Badriprasad Mittal vide Exh.6. He has performed the postmortem of the deceased and also produced postmortem note vide Exh.7. Considering the ocular and documentary evidence in form of postmortem report, the prosecution has established that the death of the deceased is homicidal death.
13. The prosecution has examined material witness PW-7 Rajubhai Madiabhai vide Exh.22. He has stated the fact that on 10/08/1998, he was driving the S.T. Bus bearing registration no.C.I.F.-230. He has further stated at length facts of the incident that six to seven tribal people pelted stones on the bus and front side glass of the bus was broken. He has further stated about the injuries caused to the deceased in stone pelting and identified A-1 before the trial court. During the cross-examination, he has admitted the fact that he has not given name of persons who were pelted stones before the police. He has further admitted the fact that he has not given specification of the accused before the police. He has also admitted that there was no TI parade conducted Page 6 of 12 Uploaded by PATEL ILA KANTIBHAI(HC00194) on Wed Aug 06 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Aug 06 23:04:41 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/851/2004 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/08/2025 undefined for identification of the accused.
14. The prosecution has examined the material witness, Investigation Officer PW-8 Jayendrakumar Nathalal Joshi at Exh.23. He has admitted the fact that he has not arranged the TI parade during the investigation.
15. Considering the facts and circumstances of the prosecution case and re-appreciating the prosecution evidence, the prosecution has miserably failed to establish the guilt of the respondents accused. Not only that, there is no iota of evidence to connect the respondents accused in the said incident. The identification of the accused also not proved. No TI parade was carried out by the Investigation Officer during the investigation. There is no direct or corroborative evidence to connect both the accused of the alleged charges.
16. At the outset, it is required to be noted that the principles which would govern and regulate the hearing of appeal by this Court against an order of acquittal passed by the trial Court, have been very succinctly explained by the Page 7 of 12 Uploaded by PATEL ILA KANTIBHAI(HC00194) on Wed Aug 06 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Aug 06 23:04:41 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/851/2004 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/08/2025 undefined Apex Court in a catena of decisions. In the case of M.S. Narayana Menon @ Mani Vs. State of Kerala & Anr., (2006) 6 S.C.C. 39, the Apex Court has narrated the powers of High Court in appeal against the order of acquittal. In Paragraph-54 of the said decision, the Apex Court has observed as under:
"54. In any event the High Court entertained an appeal treating to be an appeal against acquittal, it was in fact exercising the revisional jurisdiction. Even while exercising an appellate power against a judgment of acquittal, the High Court should have borne in mind the well-settled principles of law that where two view are possible, the appellate Court should not interfere with the finding of acquittal recorded by the Court below."
16.1. Further, in the case of Chandrappa Vs. State of Karnataka, (2007) 4 S.C.C. 415, the Apex Court has laid down the following principle;
"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:
[1] An appellate Court has full power to review, re- appreciate 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 Page 8 of 12 Uploaded by PATEL ILA KANTIBHAI(HC00194) on Wed Aug 06 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Aug 06 23:04:41 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/851/2004 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/08/2025 undefined 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 curtain extensive powers of an appellate Court in an appeal against acquittal. Such phraseologies are more in the nature of "flourishes of language" to emphasis 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.
[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."
16.2. Thus, it is a settled principle that while exercising appellate power, even 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 9 of 12 Uploaded by PATEL ILA KANTIBHAI(HC00194) on Wed Aug 06 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Aug 06 23:04:41 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/851/2004 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/08/2025 undefined 16.3. In the case of State of Goa V. Sanjay Thakran & Anr., (2007) 3 S.C.C. 75, the Apex Court reiterated the powers of the High Court in such cases. In Paragraph-16 of the said decision, the Court observed as under;
"16. From the aforesaid decisions, it is apparent that while exercising the powers in appeal against the order of acquittal the Court of appeal would not ordinarily interfere with the order of acquittal unless the approach of the lower Court is vitiated by some manifest illegality and the conclusion arrived at would not be arrived at by any reasonable person and, therefore, the decision is to be characterized as perverse. Merely because two views are possible, the Court of appeal would not take the view which would upset the judgment delivered by the Court below. However, the appellate Court has a power to review the evidence if it is of the view that the conclusion arrived at by the Court below is perverse and the Court has committed a manifest error of law and ignored the material evidence on record. A duty is cast upon the appellate Court, in such circumstances, to re- appreciate the evidence to arrive to a just decision on the basis of material placed on record to find out whether any of the accused is connected with the commission of the crime he is charged with."
16.4. Similar principle has been laid down by the Apex Court in the cases of State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Ram Veer Singh & Ors, 2007 A.I.R. S.C.W. 5553 and in Girja Prasad (Dead) by LRs Vs. State of MP reported in 2007 A.I.R. S.C.W. 5589. Thus, the powers, which this Court may exercise against an order of acquittal, are well settled. Page 10 of 12 Uploaded by PATEL ILA KANTIBHAI(HC00194) on Wed Aug 06 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Aug 06 23:04:41 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/851/2004 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/08/2025 undefined 16.5. It is also a settled legal position that in acquittal appeal, the appellate Court is not required to re-write the judgment or to give fresh reasonings, when the reasons assigned by the Court below are found to be just and proper. Such principle is laid down by the Apex Court in the case of State of Karnataka Vs. Hemareddy reported in AIR 1981 S.C. 1417, wherein, it is held as under:
"... This Court has observed in Girija Nandini Devi V. Bigendra Nandini Chaudhary (1967)1 SCR 93: (AIR 1967 SC 1124) that it is not the duty of the appellate Court when it agrees with the view of the trial Court on the evidence to repeat the narration of the evidence or to reiterate the reasons given by the trial Court expression of general agreement with the reasons given by the Court the decision of which is under appeal, will ordinarily suffice."
16.6. Thus, in case the appellate Court agrees with the reasons and the opinion given by the lower Court, then the discussion of evidence is not necessary.
17. Considering the impugned judgment and order of the learned trial Court and the aforesaid reasoning and bearing in mind the statutory provisions, as well as the judgments of the Page 11 of 12 Uploaded by PATEL ILA KANTIBHAI(HC00194) on Wed Aug 06 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Aug 06 23:04:41 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/851/2004 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/08/2025 undefined Hon'ble Apex Court, this Court is of the considered opinion that the present appeal does not warrant any interference in the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned trial Court. We find that the findings recorded by the learned trial Court are absolutely just and proper and in recording the said findings, no illegality and infirmity has been committed by it. We are therefore, in complete agreement with the findings and ultimate conclusion recorded by the learned trial Court and there is no reasons to interfere with the same.
18. The present appeal of the State is accordingly dismissed. Bail bond, if any, shall stand cancelled.
19. Record and proceedings be sent back forthwith to the concerned court.
(A. S. SUPEHIA, J) (D. M. VYAS, J) ILA/17 Page 12 of 12 Uploaded by PATEL ILA KANTIBHAI(HC00194) on Wed Aug 06 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Aug 06 23:04:41 IST 2025