Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Manubhai Panchanbhai Makwana on 5 August, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1841/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/08/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1841 of 2012
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE S.V. PINTO Sd/-
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
No
==========================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
MANUBHAI PANCHANBHAI MAKWANA & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR. PRANAV DHAGAT, APP for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR VL THAKKAR(2735) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1
MR. HARDIK C THAKKAR(7133) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 2
MR. NIRAV V THAKKAR(9766) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE S.V. PINTO
Date : 05/08/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant State under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the judgement and order of acquittal passed by learned Special Judge, Limbdi (hereinafter referred to as "the learned Trial Court") in Special (Atrocity) Case No. 07 of 2012 (Old Case No. 40 of 2009) on 30.08.2012, whereby, the learned Trial Court has acquitted the respondent for the offence punishable under Sections 323, 504, 506(2) and 114 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereafter referred to as "IPC" for short), Sections 3(1)(10) of the Scheduled Caste Page 1 of 15 Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Mon Aug 11 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 11 22:00:36 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1841/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/08/2025 undefined and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as "Atrocities Act") and Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act.
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 On 31-12-2008, Mahesh the son of the complainant Jagdishbhai Bachubhai Chauhan was in the school and the other son Vipul came and told the complainant that two boys were quarreling with Mahesh. The complainant immediately went to school and found that the accused and his two sons Bhimo and Kirti were quarreling with his son Mahesh. The accused took a stick and hit one blow on the right hand and one blow on the back of Mahesh. At that time, the complainant Jagdish Bachubhai Chauhan asked the accused why was he interfering when the children were quarreling and the accused hurled caste-slurs against him. The complainant took his son to the Government Jospital at Sayla and thereafter to the Mahatma Gandhi Hospital and filed the complaint at the Panshina Police Station under Sections 323, 504 and 506(2) of the Indian Penal Code, Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act, and Section 3 (1) (10) Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Page 2 of 15 Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Mon Aug 11 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 11 22:00:36 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1841/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/08/2025 undefined Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as "the Atrocity Act"), which came tobe registered as Panshina Police Station II-C.R.No. 3001 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 Chief Judicial Magistrate First Class, Limbdi and as the said offence against the accused was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the case was committed to the Additional Sessions Court, Limbdi as per the provisions of Section 209 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and case was registered Special (Atrocity) Case No. 07 of 2012 (Old Case No. 40 of 2009). 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. 7 was framed against the accused and the statements of the accused was recorded at Exh.8, wherein, the accused denied all the contents of the charge and the entire evidence of the prosecution was taken on record. 2.4 The prosecution produced ten oral evidences and five documentary evidences to bring home charge against the accused and after the learned Additional Public Prosecutor filed the closing pursis at Exh. 36, the further statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Page 3 of 15 Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Mon Aug 11 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 11 22:00:36 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1841/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/08/2025 undefined Criminal Procedure, 1973 were recorded, wherein, the accused denied all the evidence of the prosecution on record. The accused refused to step into the witness box but stated that he wanted to examine defense witness. 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 judgment and order was pleased to acquit the accused from all the charges leveled against him.
3. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said judgement and order of acquittal, the appellant - State has filed the present appeal mainly stating that the impugned judgement 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 cross-examination, nothing adverse has been elicited in favour of the respondents. The case has been proved beyond reasonable doubts and the prosecution has successfully established the case against the respondents and the judgement and order of acquittal is unwarranted, illegal and without any basis in the eyes of 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.
Page 4 of 15 Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Mon Aug 11 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 11 22:00:36 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1841/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/08/2025 undefined
4. Heard learned APP Mr. Pranav Dhagat for the appellant - State, learned advocate Mr. Hardik C Brahmbhatt for the respondent No.2 - original complainant and learned advocate Mr. Nirav V. Thakkar for the respondent - original accused No.1. Perused the impugned judgement and order of acquittal and have re-appreciated the entire evidence of the prosecution on record of the case.
5. Learned APP Mr. Pranav Dhagat and learned advocate Mr. Hardik C Brahmbhatt have jointly taken this Court through the entire evidence of the prosecution on record of the case and submitted that the judgment and order of acquittal is contrary to law and evidence on record and the learned trial Court has not appreciated the direct and indirect evidence in the case. The complainant has supported the case of the prosecution and the witnesses have identified the accused before the learned trial Court. The prosecution has fully proved the case beyond reasonable doubts but the learned trial Court has relied on minor contradictions and has given undue weightage with regard to the place of incident. That the order passed by the learned trial Court is illegal, improper and perverse and is required to be quashed and set aside and the appeal of the appellant must be allowed.
Page 5 of 15 Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Mon Aug 11 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 11 22:00:36 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1841/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/08/2025 undefined
6. Learned advocate Mr. Nirav V Thakkar for the respondent No. 1 has submitted that the judgments and order has been passed after appreciation of all the evidence and the learned trial Court has appreciated the evidence in proper perspective and hence, the appeal of the appellant-State must be rejected.
7. At the outset, before discussing the facts of the present case, it would be appropriate to refer to the observations of the Apex Court in the case of Chandrappa & Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka reported in 2007 (4) SCC 415, wherein, the Apex Court has observed as under:
Recently, in Kallu v. State of M.P., (2006) 10 SCC 313 : AIR 2006 SC 831, this Court stated; "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) From the above decisions, in our considered view, the following general principles regarding powers of appellate Court while dealing with an appeal against an order of acquittal emerge;
(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;Page 6 of 15 Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Mon Aug 11 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 11 22:00:36 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1841/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/08/2025 undefined (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 emphasize 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 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.
8. The law with regard to acquittal appeals is well crystallized and in acquittal appeals, there is a 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 was a possible view, there is no reason for the Appellate Court to interfere in the same.
9. In light on the above settled principles of law and considering the Page 7 of 15 Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Mon Aug 11 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 11 22:00:36 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1841/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/08/2025 undefined evidence of the prosecution on record, Prosecution Witness No.1 - Jagdishbhai Bachubhai Chauhan examined at Exh. 11 is the complainant, who has narrated the facts as produced in the FIR, which is produced at Exhibit 12 and the witness has produced his caste certificate at Exhibit 13. During the cross examination by the learned advocate for the accused, the witness has stated that when the incident had occurred in the school, he was at home and the cause of the incident was the children, who were swinging on the swing. The witness has admitted that he has not mentioned the exact place, where the accused met him, and after filing of the complaint, he had received an amount of Rs.2700/- from the government.
9.1 Prosecution Witness No. 2 - Maheshbhai Jagdishbhai Chauhan examined at Exh. 15 is the son of the complainant and he has stated that on the date of the incident, he was in school and was on the swing in the recess time. At that time, Kuldeep - the son of the accused came and pushed him and told him to get down from the swing as he wanted to swing. Both of them had a quarrel and the accused was called and he took a stick and gave him one blow on his right hand and two blows on his back and threatened to break him, if he had took his son's name. The teacher Ilaben intervened and told him to immediately go Page 8 of 15 Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Mon Aug 11 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 11 22:00:36 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1841/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/08/2025 undefined away and at that time, his brother called his father and his father scolded the accused. He was taken to the Sayla hospital and thereafter to Gandhi Hospital at Surendranagar.
During the cross examination by the learned advocate for the accused, the witness has stated that they are known to the accused for many years and his father was with him when he had gone to the hospital at Sayla and Surendranagar. His father had spoken to the doctor and at the time of the incident, his father, the accused, his brother and teacher Ilaben were not together at the same time. The witness has submitted that the accused has filed a case on his father also.
9.2 Prosecution Witness No. 3 - Kamleshbhai Jagdishbhai Chauhan is the son of the complainant and he has supported the case of the prosecution.
During the cross examination by the learned advocate for the accused, he has admitted that it was recess time and he and his brother Vipul had come home for lunch and while his brother Mahesh was swinging, there were 20 to 25 students around. His brother had fallen down and was injured and he had informed his father and mother about the same but he did not inform the teachers and students about the same. The witness has admitted that if a case under the Atrocity Act is filed, they would get a compensation and his father had received a Page 9 of 15 Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Mon Aug 11 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 11 22:00:36 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1841/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/08/2025 undefined compensation of Rs.2700.
9.3 Prosecution Witness No. 4 - Vipulbhai Jagdishbhai examined at Exhibit 21 is the son of the complainant and has supported the case of the prosecution.
During the cross examination by the learned advocate for the accused, the witness has admitted that, at the time of the recess, immediately the bell rang and he went home with his brother Kamlesh and after recess, they did not go back to the school. His brother Mahesh had come home and told him that he and Kuldeep had a fight and thereafter his father had gone and filed the complaint. The witness has admitted that the swing was an iron swing and his brother Mahesh had told him that he and Kuldeep had a fight about the swing and he was injured with the swing.
9.4 Prosecution Witness No. 5 - Dr. Ramniklal Gordhanbhai Thanki examined at Exhibit 22 is the Medical Officer, who was on duty at General Hospital, Surendranagar and he has stated that on 31-12-2008, Maheshbhai Jagdishbhai was brought with a transfer chit and in the history, he has stated that he was assaulted with a lathi by Manubhai and had taken primary treatment at Community Health Center, Sayla . On examination, a red bruise was found over the right upper arm about 6 cm x 1.5 cm in size and there was tenderness and swelling, a red bruise over Page 10 of 15 Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Mon Aug 11 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 11 22:00:36 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1841/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/08/2025 undefined the left scapular region about 3 cm x 1.5 cm in size, a red bruise over right scapula about 3 cm x 1.5 cm in size and a red bruise over inter scapular region of back about 3 cm x 1.5 cm in size. The patient was admitted on 31-12-2008 at 8.30 pm and was discharged on 3-01-2009. The injuries were simple in nature and were caused with a hard and blunt object and would recover within 10 days, if no complications arise. The witness has produced the Medical Certificate at Exhibit 23 and the transfer chit at Exhibit 24.
During the cross examination by the learned advocate for the accused, the witness has stated that if a person falls down from an iron swing and was injured with the swing, the injuries sustained by the patient could occur. In the medical certificate produced at Exhibit 23, he has not stated that the history was given by the patient himself. 9.5 Prosecution Witness No. 6 - Pratapsang Roopsang Chauhan examined at Exhibit 26 and Prosecution Witness No. 8 Mansukhbhai Laghubhai Fichadiya at Exhibit 31 are the panch-witnesses of the place of offence, which is produced at Exhibit 27. The witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution and have been declared hostile 9.6 Prosecution Witness No. 7 - Bharatbhai Shivubhai Parmar is the panchwitness of the arrest panchnama, which is produced at Exhibit Page 11 of 15 Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Mon Aug 11 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 11 22:00:36 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1841/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/08/2025 undefined
29. The witness has not supported the case of the prosecution and has been declared hostile.
9.7 Prosecution Witness No. 9 - Nasruddinkhan Kamumiya Malik examined at Exhibit 32 is the PSO who has registered the complaint at Sayla Police Station and has produced the extract of the station diary at Exhibit 33. On perusal of the document produced at Exhibit 33, the offence has occurred on 31.12.2008 at 16:00 hours and the complaint was filed 01.01.2009 at 15:45 hours at the Sayla Police Station. 9.8 Prosecution Witness No. 10 Ramjibhai Jagjivanbhai Pargi examined at Exhibit 34 is the Investigating Officer, who has narrated the procedure undertaken by him during investigation.
In the cross examination, the witness has admitted that the complainant did not mention the exact place where the incident has occurred and in the complaint, he has not stated that his son was hit with a stick. None of the witnesses have stated in their statement that the accused had used any caste-slurs against the complainant and he has not recorded the statement of teacher Ilaben. Teacher Ilaben was not an eyewitness to the incident and he has not recorded the statement of the Principal of the school to find out the recess time during of the school. Moreover, during investigation, he did not take any documentary Page 12 of 15 Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Mon Aug 11 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 11 22:00:36 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1841/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/08/2025 undefined evidence to show that witness Vipul and Kamlesh were present in the school and he has not recorded the statements of any students during investigation. Witness Mahesh did not say that the teacher Ilaben or Principal are eyewitnesses to the incident and besides the place of school, no panchnama of any place of offense was drawn. During investigation, no evidence of any eyewitness was found.
10. On appreciation of the entire evidence of the prosecution, the exact place of incident where the incident has occurred is not definite and the complainant states that the accused had met him on the road, but has not mentioned the exact place, where he met the accused. Moreover, the injured witness Mahesh has stated that teacher Ilaben was an eyewitness to the incident and it has also emerged on record that there were about 20 to 25 students near the swing at the time of the incident as it was recess time but there is no evidence of any independent witness on record. The Investigating Officer has admitted that he has not recorded the statement of teacher Ilaben as it did not emerge during investigation that she was an eyewitness to the incident and he has not recorded the statement of the Principal who could have thrown some light whether the incident has occurred in the school or not. It has also emerged on record that the eyewitness Mahesh had a quarrel with Kuldeep - the son of the accused regarding sitting on the swing and Mahesh was injured with the swing.
Page 13 of 15 Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Mon Aug 11 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 11 22:00:36 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1841/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/08/2025 undefined
There are major contradictions in the deposition of Prosecution Witness No. 3 - Kamleshbhai Jagdishbhai Chauhan and Prosecution Witness No. 4 - Vipul Jagdishbhai Chauhan and besides the complainant and his sons, no independent witnesses have been examined on record. Moreover, none of the witnesses have stated that any caste-slurs were used by the accused at the time of the incident and the entire evidence has been appreciated by the learned trial Court.
10. In view of the settled position of law in the decisions of Chandrappa (supra), 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 and order and the present appeal is devoid of merits and resultantly, the same is dismissed.
Page 14 of 15 Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Mon Aug 11 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 11 22:00:36 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1841/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/08/2025 undefined
11. The impugned judgement and order of acquittal passed by learned Special (Atrocity) Case No. 07 of 2012 (Old Case No. 40 of 2009) on 30.08.2012, , is hereby confirmed.
12. Bail bond stands canceled. Record and proceedings be sent back to the concerned Trial Court forthwith.
Sd/-
(S. V. PINTO,J) VVM Page 15 of 15 Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Mon Aug 11 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 11 22:00:36 IST 2025