Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Vijay @ Dipu Savaisinh Chauhan on 5 August, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1160/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/08/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL (AGAINST ACQUITTAL) NO. 1160 of 2017
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE S.V. PINTO
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting No
==========================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
VIJAY @ DIPU SAVAISINH CHAUHAN & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS. C.M. SHAH, APP for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR J G PANCHAL(2672) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1
MR P J YAGNIK(1004) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1
NOTICE SERVED for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE S.V. PINTO
Date : 05/08/2025
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 (Atrocity) Judge, and 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Gandhinagar (hereinafter referred to as "the learned Trial Court") in Special (Atrocity) Case No. 33/2014 on 29.06.2017, whereby, the learned Trial Court has acquitted the respondent for the offence punishable under Sections Page 1 of 16 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Fri Aug 08 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Aug 09 00:19:08 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1160/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/08/2025 undefined 323, 325, 337 and 506(2) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 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 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 07.09.2014, at around 20.00 hours, the complainant - Manishkumar Kanhaiyalal Kapadia and his friend Shishir Kantilal Vaghela were going towards Chandkeda - Motera village to get a xerox copy of a document when the accused and Jameel Rathod met them.
The complainant greeted Jameel Rathod and the accused got angry and abused and hurled caste slurs against the complainant. The complainant and Shishir started walking towards their house when suddenly the accused came from behind and while they were on the road in front of Urja Complex, the accused caught hold of the shirt of the Page 2 of 16 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Fri Aug 08 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Aug 09 00:19:08 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1160/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/08/2025 undefined complainant, threw him on the ground and started assaulting him. Shishir Kantilal Vaghela intervened and while the complainant was trying to run away, the accused threw a stone on the back of the complainant and injured him on his back and he sustained a fracture on his right knee. The complainant filed the complaint at Chandkeda Police Station under Sections 323, 506(2) and 337 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(1)(10) of the Atrocity Act which came to be registered at Chandkeda Police Station I - C.R. No.170 of 2014.
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 Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gandhinagar and as the said offences against the accused were exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the case was committed to the Sessions Court, Gandhinagar as per the provisions of Section 209 of Code of Criminal Procedure and the case was registered as Special (Atrocity) Case No. 33/2014.
Page 3 of 16 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Fri Aug 08 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Aug 09 00:19:08 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1160/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/08/2025 undefined 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. 5 was framed against the accused and the statement of the accused was recorded at Exh. 6, wherein, the accused denied the contents of the charge and the entire evidence of the prosecution was taken on record.
2.4 The prosecution examined 10 witnesses and produced 11 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 the accused from the charges levelled against him.
3. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said Page 4 of 16 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Fri Aug 08 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Aug 09 00:19:08 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1160/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/08/2025 undefined 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 elicited in favor of the respondent. The case has been proved beyond reasonable doubt and the prosecution has successfully established the case against the respondent 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. P.J. Yagnik with learned advocate Mr. J.G. Panchal for the respondent no. 1. Though served, the respondent no. 2 has not remained present Page 5 of 16 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Fri Aug 08 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Aug 09 00:19:08 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1160/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/08/2025 undefined 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 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. P.J. Yagnik with learned advocate Mr. J.G. Panchal for the respondent no. 1 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 Page 6 of 16 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Fri Aug 08 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Aug 09 00:19:08 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1160/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/08/2025 undefined 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.
7. To bring home the charge against the accused, the prosecution has examined PW1 - Manishkumar Kanaiyalal Kapadiya at Exh. 26 and the witness is the complainant who has narrated the facts of the complaint which is produced at Exh. 27. During the cross-examination by the learned advocate for the accused, the witness has stated that he is a graduate in BA and the incident had occurred near a complex where there are many shops. A number of persons were on the road and at the time of the incident, it Page 7 of 16 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Fri Aug 08 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Aug 09 00:19:08 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1160/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/08/2025 undefined was dark. The 108 ambulance was called and he was taken to the hospital and at the place of incident, there are private hospitals also. The complainant has stated that he went home and thereafter called 108 Ambulance and went to the hospital. Thereafter, he had gone home and was resting for three months and as his surname is Kapadia, one cannot know his caste. He did not give the police his caste certificate when he had filed the complaint and he and the accused are residing in the same society. 7.1 PW2 - Gaurav Bipinbhai Maheria examined at Exh. 30 is the panch witness of the panchnama of the place of offence which is produced at Exh. 31. The witness has supported the case of the prosecution and during the cross- examination, he has admitted that near the place of incident, there is a ditch and the complainant was present with him in the court.
7.2 PW3 - Jameelkumar Kamleshkumar Rathod examined at Exh. 34 is an eyewitness who was with the accused on the date of the incident. The witness has stated that he is known to the complainant and he and and the accused had Page 8 of 16 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Fri Aug 08 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Aug 09 00:19:08 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1160/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/08/2025 undefined gone to Motera to buy slippers and were going home on the bike. The complainant and one of his friend were walking towards home and he greeted the complainant. The complainant and the accused did not get along and hence, the complainant ignored the accused and they both had a verbal altercation and started pushing each other. The complainant thereafter, threatened the accused that he would go to his house and tell all his secrets and was quickly walking towards his house. The witness got down from the bike and the accused followed the complainant on the bike and he does not know what happened thereafter. During the cross-examination by the learned advocate for the accused, the witness has stated that in his presence, no incident had occurred and he is known to the complainant as he is his neighbour.
7.3 PW4 - Ritaben Manishkumar Kapadia examined at Exh. 36 is the wife of the complainant and she has stated that her husband came home and informed her about the incident. That he was taken for treatment to Ahmedabad Civil Hospital and admitted as an indoor patient. During the Page 9 of 16 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Fri Aug 08 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Aug 09 00:19:08 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1160/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/08/2025 undefined cross-examination, the witness has stated that at the place of incident, there are a number of shops and she does not know what time her husband came home.
7.4 PW5 - Vijaykumar Shankarji Thakore examined at Exh. 37 has stated that on 07.09.2014, he was going home at around 08.00 pm on his motorcycle and at that time, he saw the accused assaulting the complainant and he halted his motorcycle and intervened and when the complainant started running towards his house, the accused took a stone and threw it on the back of the complainant. The accused also threatened to kill the complainant. He went behind the complainant to his house and the complainant told him about the incident. During the cross-examination, the witness has admitted that the place of incident is the main road from Gandhinagar to Chandkeda and is teeming with people and vehicles. The lights in the complex and the shops are switched on around 07.00 pm and the witness has denied that near the place of incident, there is a ditch. He had gone to the house of the complainant after four to five days and his statement was recorded by the police at Page 10 of 16 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Fri Aug 08 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Aug 09 00:19:08 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1160/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/08/2025 undefined that place and the police had called him to the house of the complainant.
7.5 PW6 - Dr. Chandrakant Rajabhai Makwana examined at Exh. 38 is the CMO at Civil Hospital, Ahmedabad and has stated that on 07.09.2014, at around 10.00 pm, he was on duty when Manishkumar Kanubhai Kapadia was brought by his relative Natubhai B. Parmar for treatment. In the history, the patient has stated that at around 08.00 pm, while he was at Hari Om Nagar Part 2, No. 4, Motera village and was at the entrance of his society, Deepubhai came in a drunken state and threw bricks on him and assaulted him and injured him. On examination, there was tenderness on the centre of chest without any external injury marks, tenderness on the centre of the back, swelling over the right foot of about 4 cm x 3 cm with pain and immobility and abrasion over the base of little finger of right foot of about 1 cm x 1 cm. The x-ray showed a displaced fracture through the posterior aspect of 5th rib on right side and an undisplaced fracture through right lateral malleolus. The witness has produced the medical certificate of the Page 11 of 16 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Fri Aug 08 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Aug 09 00:19:08 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1160/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/08/2025 undefined complainant at Exh. 40. During the cross-examination by learned advocate for the accused, the witness has stated that he had given the treatment on an OPD basis and the patient was conscious and could speak properly. In the history, the patient did not say on which part of his body was the brick thrown and the injury nos. 1 to 3 were simple injuries. The witness has admitted that if a person slipped from a bike, he would sustain injuries on his legs and also sustain a fracture and if a person with a bike falls in a ditch, he would sustain injuries as the complainant. 7.6 PW7 - Kantibhai Babardas Rawat examined at Exh. 44 is the PSI who has recorded the complaint of the complainant.
7.7 PW8 - Lakshmanbhai Becharbhai Rathod examined at Exh. 47 is the Junior Clerk at the Social Welfare Office and he has identified the caste certificate produced at Exh. 28. The witness has stated that the caste certificate was given from their office on 24.06.2004 on the basis of the school leaving certificate of the complainant. 7.8 PW9 - Shatrughan Ramsamuj Tiwari examined at Exh. Page 12 of 16 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Fri Aug 08 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Aug 09 00:19:08 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1160/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/08/2025 undefined 49 is the PSO who has registered the complaint and has produced the extract of the Station Diary at Exh. 50 and the FIR at Exh. 51.
7.9 PW10 - Jagdishbhai Chunilal Patel examined at Exh. 52 is the Investigating Officer who has narrated the procedure undertaken by him during investigation. During the cross-examination by the learned advocate for the accused, the witness has stated that in the complaint, the name of Vijaybhai Shankarbhai did not emerge as a witness and it was found that the accused and the complainant were the residents of the same society and were friends. During investigation, no stone, brick or bike was seized as muddamaal.
8. On minute appreciation of the entire evidence of the prosecution, the complainant PW1 - Manishkumar Kanaiyal Kapadia in his deposition at Exh. 26 has not stated that the accused hurled any caste slurs at the time of the incident. PW5 - Vijaykumar Shankarji Thakor examined at Exh. 37 has stated before the learned Trial Court that he is an eyewitness to the incident but the Investigating Officer has Page 13 of 16 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Fri Aug 08 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Aug 09 00:19:08 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1160/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/08/2025 undefined categorically stated that the name of Vijaykumar Shankarji Thakor did not emerge as an eyewitness to the incident during investigation. It has also emerged on record that the said Vijaykumar Shankarji Thakor was a neighbor of the complainant and if the deposition of the Medical Officer PW6 - Dr. Chandrakant Rajabhai Makwana and the medical certificate at Exh. 40 is perused, he has stated that the complainant was brought to the hospital by one Natubhai B. Parmar but the said Natubhai Parmar has not been examined as a witness before the learned Trial Court. In the entire evidence, it has come on record that the place where the incident occurred was in front of a complex and there were a number of shops and the road is the main road between Chandkeda and Gandhinagar and is teeming with people and vehicles at all times but no independent witnesses have been examined before the learned Trial Court. As per the medical certificate, there was a fracture on the ankle of the complainant but there are no allegations about any injury caused on the ankle of the complainant. In the complaint, the complainant has stated that he and Page 14 of 16 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Fri Aug 08 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Aug 09 00:19:08 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1160/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/08/2025 undefined his friend Shishir Kantilal Vaghela were going to take a zerox of a document towards Chandkeda - Motera and as per the case of the prosecution, Shishir Kantilal Vaghela is an eyewitness to the entire incident but he has not been examined before the learned Trial Court. The entire evidence does not prove the case against the accused beyond reasonable doubts.
9. In view of the settled position of law, 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 Page 15 of 16 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Fri Aug 08 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Aug 09 00:19:08 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1160/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/08/2025 undefined 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 (Atrocity) Judge, and 4 th Additional Sessions Judge, Gandhinagar in Special (Atrocity) Case No. 33/2014 on 29.06.2017, is hereby confirmed.
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 16 of 16 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Fri Aug 08 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Aug 09 00:19:08 IST 2025