Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Vejabhai Gangabhai Sutreja on 2 August, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1053/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/08/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1053 of 2012
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE S.V. PINTO
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting No
==========================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
VEJABHAI GANGABHAI SUTREJA & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS. C.M. SHAH, APP for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR RUTURAJ NANAVATI(5624) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1,2
RULE SERVED for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 3
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE S.V. PINTO
Date : 02/08/2025
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 Special Judge and 7th Additional Sessions Judge, Junagadh (hereinafter referred to as "the learned Trial Court") in Atrocity Sessions Case No. 28/2010 on 05.04.2012, whereby, the learned Trial Court has acquitted the respondents for the offence punishable under Sections 323, 504, 506(2) and Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 Page 1 of 15 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Fri Aug 08 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Aug 09 00:05:37 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1053/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/08/2025 undefined and Section 3(1)(10) of Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as "the Atrocity Act" for short).
1.1 The respondents are hereinafter referred to as "the accused" in the rank and file 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 On 25.06.2010, at around 08.30 am, the complainant
- Amrabhai Meghabai Singal had gone to his agricultural field situated in the Naredi village with his wife Rasilaben Amrabhai Singal and son Rajeshbhai Amrabhai Singal and found that the accused whose field is adjoining the field of the complainant had broken the edge of the field and were diverting gutter water into the field of the complainant. The complainant asked the accused why they were doing so and the accused got angry and assaulted the complainant and hurled caste slurs against the complainant. The complainant - Amrabhai Meghabai Singal filed a complaint at the Vanthali Police Station under Section 323, 504, Page 2 of 15 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Fri Aug 08 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Aug 09 00:05:37 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1053/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/08/2025 undefined 506(2) and 114 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 3(1)(10) of the Atrocity Act which came to be registered Vanthali Police Station II - C.R. No. 3059 of 2010. 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, Vanthli and as the said offences against the accused were exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the case was committed to the Sessions Court, Junagadh as per the provisions of Section 209 of Code of Criminal Procedure and the case was registered as Atrocity Sessions Case No. 28/2010.
2.3 The accused were 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. 1 was framed against the accused and the statement of the accused was recorded at Exhs. 2 and 3, wherein, the accused denied the contents of Page 3 of 15 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Fri Aug 08 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Aug 09 00:05:37 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1053/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/08/2025 undefined the charge and the entire evidence of the prosecution was taken on record.
2.4 The prosecution examined 9 witnesses and produced 10 documentary evidences on record in support of their case and after the learned Additional Public Prosecutor filed the closing pursis, the further statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was recorded and 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 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 Page 4 of 15 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Fri Aug 08 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Aug 09 00:05:37 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1053/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/08/2025 undefined elicited in favor of the respondent. 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 respondents 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. Ruturaj Nanavati for the respondent nos. 1 and 2. Though served, the respondent no. 3 has not remained present either in person or through an advocate. 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. C.M. Shah has taken this Court through the entire evidence of the prosecution on record of the case and submitted that the complainant has fully Page 5 of 15 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Fri Aug 08 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Aug 09 00:05:37 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1053/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/08/2025 undefined 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. Ruturaj Nanavati for the respondent nos. 1 and 2 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 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 Page 6 of 15 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Fri Aug 08 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Aug 09 00:05:37 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1053/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/08/2025 undefined 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 - Amrabhai Meghabai Singal examined at Exh. 12 is the complainant who has narrated the facts as stated in the complaint which is produced at Exh. 14. The complainant has also produced his caste certificate at Exh. 13. During the cross examination by the learned advocate for the accused the witness has admitted that at the time of the incident there was no crop growing in the field and the gutter was made in his field and the water from the gutter flows outside through the drain. The complainant has also admitted that the field adjoining to him does not belong to the accused no. 1. The field at the southern side belongs to Mansukhbhai Hamirbhai and there is a road on the eastern and western side. He and his son had gone to the hospital at around 10.00 am and he had told the doctor that he had an altercation but did not tell the doctor any other details. At the time of the incident, there were about 20 people in Page 7 of 15 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Fri Aug 08 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Aug 09 00:05:37 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1053/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/08/2025 undefined the field and he had signed the complaint which is produced at Exh. 14 at the field at around 06.00 pm. The complainant has immediately thereafter, stated that he had signed the complaint which is produced at Exh. 14 at the hospital.
7.1 PW2 - Rasilaben Amrabhai Singal examined at Exh. 16 is the wife of the complainant and has supported the case of the prosecution. During the cross examination she has admitted that she had gone to the field one week prior to the incident and the edge was made of mud and if there were heavy rains, the edges would be washed away. The witness has admitted that the adjoining field does not belong to the accused no. 1 and they did not have any discussion with the accused no. 1. That immediately after the incident, they went home and she did not go with her husband to the bus stand.
7.2 PW3 - Rajeshbhai Amrabhai Singal examined at Exh. 17 is the son of the complainant who has stated that the field of the accused is on the eastern side and when they went to the field on the date of the incident, both the Page 8 of 15 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Fri Aug 08 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Aug 09 00:05:37 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1053/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/08/2025 undefined accused were present and they were digging the edges and had destroyed about five feet of the edge. If there were heavy rains in the monsoon season, water would come into their field and hence, his father had gone to the place where they were digging and they had an altercation. The witness has stated that earlier they had a similar kind of altercation and at the time of the incident, there were a number of people in the adjoining fields. During the cross examination by the learned advocate for the accused the witness has stated that five to six days prior to the incident he had gone to the field alone and he did not go to the bus stand on the date of the incident. He and his father had gone straight to the hospital and he does not know what conversation had taken place between the doctor and his father. During the cross examination the witness has admitted that the edges were broken about one month prior to the incident and thereafter, the edges were not made by the accused. 7.3 PW4 - Ravjibhai Haribhai Rathod examined at Exh. 18 is the ASI who has recorded the complaint of the complainant.
Page 9 of 15 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Fri Aug 08 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Aug 09 00:05:37 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1053/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/08/2025 undefined 7.4 PW5 - Nathubhai Deshabhai Makwana examined at Exh. 20 is the PSO who has registered the complaint and has given the yadi for the Medical Officer which is produced at Exh. 21, the FIR at Exh. 23 and the extract of the station diary at Exh. 24.
7.5 PW6 - Anilbhai Hirabhai Barwadiya examined at Exh. 25 and PW7 - Jentibhai Juthabhai Dudhatra examined at Exh. 27 are the panch witnesses of the panchnama of the place of offence which is produced at Exh. 26. Both the witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution and have been declared hostile and cross examined at length by the learned APP.
7.6 PW8 - Bachubhai Jivajibhai Ninama examined at Exh. 30 is the Investigating Officer who has narrated in detail the procedure undertaken by him during investigation. During the cross examination by the learned advocate for the accused the witness has stated that the complainant did not submit any documents regarding his ownership of the land and at the time of the incident it was rainy season and no cultivation was done in the field. The complainant is Page 10 of 15 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Fri Aug 08 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Aug 09 00:05:37 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1053/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/08/2025 undefined working in the S.T Corporation and he did not produce any document to show whether he was on leave or on duty on the date of the incident. During investigation it was also found that there was a dispute between the parties regarding the edge between the fields and PW2 - Rasilaben - the wife of the complainant has not stated that the accused had used any caste slurs against her husband. 7.7 PW9 - Dr. Manishbhai Mahidasbhai Chavda examined at Exh. 32 is the Medical Officer who was on duty at the Community Health Centre, Vanthli on 25.06.2010. The witness has stated that at around 10.15 am, Amrabhai Meghabhai was brought for treatment and in the history he has stated that he was injured by fists on the abdomen and back. On examination, he had complained of abdominal pain but no external injury were seen on the body. The witness has produced the medical certificate at Exh. 33. During the cross examination the witness has stated that he could not state whether the complaint of pain made by the complainant was true or not and no history was given by the patient.
Page 11 of 15 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Fri Aug 08 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Aug 09 00:05:37 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1053/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/08/2025 undefined
8. On minute appreciation of the entire evidence of the prosecution, in the complaint produced at Exh. 13, the complainant has not stated any specific words that were used as caste slurs by the accused and if the deposition of the complainant and the complaint are perused, there is an exaggeration in the version of the complainant before the learned Trial Court. As per the case of the prosecution PW2
- Rasilaben Amrabhai Singal and PW3 - Rajeshbhai Amrabhai Singal are the wife and son of the complainant and they both are eyewitnesses and in the entire evidence it has emerged that there were a number of people working in the field but there are no independent witnesses examined before the learned Trial Court. There is no iota of evidence that the incident has ever occurred and the medical evidence does not support the say of the complainant. Moreover, during the entire evidence, the role of PW2 - Rasilaben Amrabhai and PW3 - Rajeshbhai Amrabhai has not come on record when the accused was assaulting the complainant with fists. There are major contradictions in the deposition of the complainant, his wife and son and Page 12 of 15 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Fri Aug 08 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Aug 09 00:05:37 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1053/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/08/2025 undefined even the place where the complainant has signed the complaint, is in dispute. On the one hand the complainant says that he had signed the complaint at the field but immediately thereafter, he has stated that he had signed the complaint in the hospital. There is contradictory evidence about the presence of the accused at the spot and it has also emerged on record that the edge between the two fields were broken one month prior to the incident and the dispute was going on and the accused had not made up the edge. There is no iota of evidence that the field of the complainant and the field of the accused were adjoining each other and the panchnama of the place of offence is also not proved as the Investigating Officer has not narrated any contentions of the panchnama. Moreover, the caste certificate of the complainant which is produced at Exh. 13 has not been proved by the prosecution and there is no evidence to show that the Investigating Officer had investigated about the caste certificate of the complainant.
9. In view of the settled position of law, the learned Trial Court has appreciated the entire evidence in proper Page 13 of 15 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Fri Aug 08 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Aug 09 00:05:37 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1053/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/08/2025 undefined 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 and order and the present appeal is devoid of merits and resultantly, the same is dismissed.
10. The impugned judgement and order of acquittal passed by the learned Special Judge and 7 th Additional Sessions Judge, Junagadh in Atrocity Sessions Case No. 28/2010 on 05.04.2012, is hereby confirmed. Page 14 of 15 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Fri Aug 08 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Aug 09 00:05:37 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1053/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/08/2025 undefined
11. 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 15 of 15 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Fri Aug 08 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Aug 09 00:05:37 IST 2025