Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Madhuben W/O Amrutbhai Karshanbhai on 2 August, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/912/2012 ORDER DATED: 02/08/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 912 of 2012
==========================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
MADHUBEN W/O AMRUTBHAI KARSHANBHAI & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR HARDIK SONI, APP for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR PARTHIV A BHATT(5331) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1,2
RULE SERVED for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1,2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MAUNA M. BHATT
Date : 02/08/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. State has filed this appeal under Section 378(1)(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'the Code, 1973') against the order of acquittal dated 29.03.2012 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad Rural at Mirzapur in Sessions Case No. 127 of 2009.
2. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. Hardik Soni for the appellant at the outset submitted that there are two respondents (original accused). Respondent No. 2 - Shri Amrutbhai Karshanbhai Maheriya expired on 30.11.2020. The death certificate of accused No. 2 is placed on record. Therefore, the proceedings would get abated in relation to accused No. 2 (respondent No. 2 herein).
3. In view of abatement of proceedings against accused No.- 2; accused No. 1 (respondent No. 1 herein) - Smt. Madhuben Page 1 of 7 Uploaded by SHRIJIT PILLAI(HC01400) on Tue Aug 05 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Aug 05 22:10:12 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/912/2012 ORDER DATED: 02/08/2025 undefined Wd/o of Amrutbhai Karshanbhai Maheriya is the sole surviving accused.
4. The facts in brief leading to prosecution case is that the complainant - Baba Fakir @ Pritamdas Girdharlal Sindhi had given a complaint against the accused before Aslali Police Station being II-C.R. No. 296 of 2008 for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 504, 506(2), 337 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code stating that on 07.10.2008 at around 10 O'clock near Sai Dham Temple situated in Division II of Indiranagar, Lambha, the accused gave abuses to the complainant and administered threat asking him to close down his Ashram, otherwise he would be killed. Further, the accused also started pelting stones at the complainant and pelting of stone had caused injuries over his forehead. The accused also threatened the complainant saying that "Dukaan Ni Baari Bandh Nahi Thaay Tarathi Thaay Te Kari Le and Taaro Aashram Bandh Kari Dai Ahiyathi Jato Rahe Nahi To Jaan Thi Maari Nakhishu". Thus, the accused started giving the complainant abuses and threat by pelting stones and caused injuries and thus committed offences punishable under Sections 323, 504, 506(2), 337 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code.
4.1 On the basis of above incident, a complaint was filed with Aslali Police Station being II-C.R. No. 296 of 2008. The police on filing the complaint registered the offence against the accused and started investigation recording statement of relevant witnesses and drawing necessary pachanamas and as soon as the police found evidences and sufficient material against the accused persons, prepared a chargesheet and Page 2 of 7 Uploaded by SHRIJIT PILLAI(HC01400) on Tue Aug 05 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Aug 05 22:10:12 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/912/2012 ORDER DATED: 02/08/2025 undefined submitted the same before the 6th Additional Sessions Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ahmedabad Rural where the case was registered being Criminal Case No. 45 of 2009. To prove against present respondents - accused the prosecution examined several witnesses and also produced several documentary evidences. On committal of the case, the learned Sessions Judge as per Section 209 of the Code, 1973 verified the accused and thereafter framed charges against the accused persons vide Exh. 5 for the offences under Section 323, 504, 506(2), 337 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code. The pleas of accused were also recorded vide Exh. 6 and 7; wherein the accused denied their involvement and pleaded to be tried. At the end of trial, after recording the statement of accused under Section 313 of CrPC and hearing the arguments on behalf of prosecution and defence, the learned Sessions Judge acquitted the respondent from all the charges leveled against him by the impugned judgment and order.
4.2 Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the aforesaid judgment and order dated 29.03.2012 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural), Mirzapur the present appeal is filed.
5. Heard learned APP Mr. Hardik Soni for the appellant - State and learned advocate Mr. Parthiv Bhatt for respondent Nos. 1 and 2.
6. Learned APP Mr. Hardik Soni for appellant - State submitted that learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural), Mirzapur has not properly appreciated the evidence on Page 3 of 7 Uploaded by SHRIJIT PILLAI(HC01400) on Tue Aug 05 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Aug 05 22:10:12 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/912/2012 ORDER DATED: 02/08/2025 undefined record and learned Additional Sessions Judge ought to have appreciated that on account of incident which took place on 07.10.2008 injury has caused on the forehead of PW1. Further, the prosecution has proved its case by leading the evidences by examining the witnesses; despite that the learned Judge has erred in observing that the prosecution has failed in proving the case and thereby erred in acquitting the accused. In this case, the evidence of PW1 who has been examined at Exh. 30 is important and he being the complainant in his deposition has stated that he was injured because of the stone pelting by accused No. 1. As stated by PW1 the accused came to his house and firstly threatened and caused serious injuries. The foul abuses are also deposed by PW1. The kick blows given by accused No. 2 to the victim is also stated by PW1 who is the sole eyewitness. Thus, PW1 has clearly supported the case of prosecution.
6.1 Learned APP further submitted that the complaint given by PW1 to Aslali Police Station cannot be ignored. Once the complaint was registered the investigation was done and after investigation the accused was found guilty and therefore the acquittal from the charges leveled is erroneous. Learned APP submitted that since the involvement of accused No. 1 is not disputed and the involvement of accused No. 1 being established; the judgment and order of learned Sessions Judge dated 29.03.2012 in Sessions Case No. 127 of 2009 being erroneous deserves to be quashed and set aside.
7. Learned advocate Mr. Parthiv Bhatt for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 submitted that the prosecution failed in establishing the Page 4 of 7 Uploaded by SHRIJIT PILLAI(HC01400) on Tue Aug 05 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Aug 05 22:10:12 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/912/2012 ORDER DATED: 02/08/2025 undefined case by leading any evidence in support of the same. The learned Sessions Court has properly appreciated the evidence and more so when the injury has been caused to the complainant and in absence of any examination of a doctor and nature of injury being known and proved by the prosecution, the finding of learned Sessions Court is appropriate. Moreover, learned Sessions Court has appreciated that the Ashram was on a disputed land and the incident occurred on account of some kind of alleged mess created by the accused on the side of the Ashram. However, there is nothing to prove as alleged in the complaint that the mess was mess created by the accused and there is finding to that effect which the learned Sessions Court has appropriately appreciated. Therefore, since the finding of learned Sessions Court being based on appreciation of correct facts evidence of record does not require interference of this Court.
7.1 This Court has minutely perused the oral as well as documentary evidence on record and gone through the impugned judgment and order passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad Rural at Mirzapur as well as the paper-book and evidence adduced by the prosecution in its entirety and has also considered the submissions made by learned APP for the appellant - State.
8. Upon perusal of the judgment and order dated 29.03.2012 in Sessions Case No. 127 of 2007, it is noticed that there are certain allegations against accused No. 2 which is in relation to kick and push to the complainant - victim. However, on death of accused No. 2 the proceedings with Page 5 of 7 Uploaded by SHRIJIT PILLAI(HC01400) on Tue Aug 05 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Aug 05 22:10:12 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/912/2012 ORDER DATED: 02/08/2025 undefined regard to accused No. 2 has been abated and hence that aspect is not required to be gone into.
9. The allegations in relation to accused No. 1 are that of pelting of stone and thereby causing serious injury on the head of complainant - victim. In relation to that learned Sessions Court has considered that the incident occurred on account of the throwing and creating some mess near the Ashram which in on the window side, where the accused was staying. It is not in dispute that the window of the accused was opening on the wall of Ashram and the incident occurred on account of the allegation of throwing some mess on the sidewall of the Ashram however, learned Sessions Court observed that no such evidence is placed on record by the prosecution. Moreover, on account of the allegation of pelting of stone on the forehead of victim-complainant, no medical evidence or legal certificate was produced. No blood-stained clothes, no doctor's examination report were placed on record. Thus, the learned Sessions Court in the opinion of this Court has rightly held that in absence of any medical evidence which the prosecution failed in producing; the injury alleged is very difficult to prove and therefore the charges leveled against accused No. 1 of pelting of stone and causing injury to complainant - victim are stated to be not proved and the accused is required to be acquitted on the basis of benefit of doubt in absence of any charges being proved.
10. Therefore, on overall analysis of aforesaid evidences on record, once the complainant and the prosecution failed in proving the charge of injury caused by placing medical Page 6 of 7 Uploaded by SHRIJIT PILLAI(HC01400) on Tue Aug 05 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Aug 05 22:10:12 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/912/2012 ORDER DATED: 02/08/2025 undefined evidence on record, it is difficult for this Court to reverse the findings recorded by learned Sessions Court.
11. In view of aforesaid nature of evidence learned Sessions Court has rightly recorded the finding of acquittal and hereby rightly acquitted the accused which calls for no interference of this Court. This Court finds that the findings recorded by the learned Sessions Court are absolutely just and proper and in recording the said findings no illegality or infirmity has been committed by it. This Court is therefore in complete agreement with the findings, ultimate conclusion and the resultant order of acquittal recorded by the Court below and hence find no reasons to interfere with the same. It is also settled legal position that in acquittal appeal, the appellate Court is not required to rewrite the judgment or to give fresh reasoning and when the reasons are assigned by the Court below are found to be just and proper. Accordingly, the present appeal being devoid of any merits, requires dismissal.
12. In the result, the present appeal is hereby dismissed. Record and Proceedings are sent back to the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad Rural at Mirzapur forthwith. Rule is discharged.
(MAUNA M. BHATT,J) SHRIJIT PILLAI Page 7 of 7 Uploaded by SHRIJIT PILLAI(HC01400) on Tue Aug 05 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Aug 05 22:10:12 IST 2025