Gujarat High Court
Bhagabhai Meragbhai Vadher vs The State Of Gujarat on 12 August, 2025
Author: Gita Gopi
Bench: Gita Gopi
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/605/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/08/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 605 of 2007
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE GITA GOPI
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
√
==========================================================
BHAGABHAI MERAGBHAI VADHER
Versus
THE STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR DEVANSH KAKKAD ADVOCATE WITH DENISH V MAVADHIYA(9207)
for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MS MONALI BHATT APP for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE GITA GOPI
Date : 12/08/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. The appellant-accused No.1 of the Atrocities Case No.18/2005, was tried before the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Veraval along with two other accused for the offence punishable under Sections 332, 186, 504, 506(2) and 114 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC'), Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act (for short 'B.P. Act') Page 1 of 17 Uploaded by MR PANKAJ KUMAR PRASAD(HC00967) on Tue Aug 12 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Aug 12 22:33:21 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/605/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/08/2025 undefined and Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short "Atrocities Act"). 1.1 By a judgment and order dated 13.03.2007, the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Veraval acquitted accused Nos.2 and 3, while convicted appellant-accused No.1 under Section 332 IPC with sentence of three years rigorous imprisonment and Rs.5,000/- fine with default stipulation of six months rigorous imprisonment and under Section 186 of the IPC, three months rigorous imprisonment and Rs.500/- fine and in default of payment of fine fifteen days rigorous imprisonment.
2. The appellant-accused No.1, has given the challenge to the judgment and order under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C.'), on the ground that the judgment and order of conviction passed by the Page 2 of 17 Uploaded by MR PANKAJ KUMAR PRASAD(HC00967) on Tue Aug 12 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Aug 12 22:33:21 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/605/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/08/2025 undefined learned Trial Court Judge is unjust, arbitrary and contrary to the materials on record and that there are serious contradiction in the evidence led by the prosecution and that the evidence of the prosecution witness does not draw the ingredients of Sections 332 and 186 IPC to establish the offence against the appellant.
3. Learned advocate Mr. Devansh Kakkad with learned advocate Mr. Denish V.Mavadhiya for the appellant submitted that the complainant himself has not supported the case of the prosecution. Advcoate Mr. Kakkad stated that the complainant's evidence would suggest that there was no such intention of the accused to deter the complainant from his public duty or to obstruct him in performance of his duties.
3.1 Advocate Mr. Kakkad submitted that the complainant has not sustained any injury, and the identification of the accused also has not been proved. The complainant was not even knowing all Page 3 of 17 Uploaded by MR PANKAJ KUMAR PRASAD(HC00967) on Tue Aug 12 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Aug 12 22:33:21 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/605/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/08/2025 undefined the accused and further the incident has taken place late at night in the dark hours, therefore, in the crowd the identification of the accused becomes difficult.
3.2 Learned advocate Mr. kakkad further stated that the complainant himself filed a purshis at Exh.16 before the Trial Court and has compounded the offence under Sections 504 and 114 of IPC, since Sections 332, 186 and 506(2) IPC and that of Atrocities Act and B.P. Act were not compoundable, the learned Trial Court Judge assuming that the accused had deterred the complainant in his public duty, had convicted the appellant. Advocate Mr. Kakkad submitted that the conviction is not on appreciation of any evidence but is merely on assumption, which is erroneous on record and further stated that on such assumption the sentence, which has been passed, is disproportionate and very harsh, which would not be consistent with the evidence that has been Page 4 of 17 Uploaded by MR PANKAJ KUMAR PRASAD(HC00967) on Tue Aug 12 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Aug 12 22:33:21 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/605/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/08/2025 undefined recorded by the Trial Court Judge of all the witnesses.
3.3 Advocate Mr. Kakkad submitted that the complainant's evidence at Exh.17 as PW4, itself suggests that there were three people, who had questioned him regarding the often power cut in the electricity supply. Mr. Kakkad thus, stated that it is a normal course of people's behaviour to question the person on duty, when electric supply often get closed in the area, which has also been admitted by the complainant himself, that they often get confronted by such kind of questions by the people.
3.4 Mr. Kakkad, learned advocate submitted that the dispute did arise, as all the people gathered there and therefore, it was informed to the higher officers, who had asked for registration of the complaint, thus, on the next day the FIR was registered.
Page 5 of 17 Uploaded by MR PANKAJ KUMAR PRASAD(HC00967) on Tue Aug 12 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Aug 12 22:33:21 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/605/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/08/2025 undefined 3.5 Referring to the medical certificate Exh.24, Mr. Kakkad submitted that the history was given of the assault of fisticuffs, however, the medical officer has very categorically noted of no visible external injury. As per complainant himself, he was in the crowd and therefore because of the push he had fallen down. Mr. Kakkad stated that there was no specific injury attributed to the present appellant and further submitted that no case under Atrocities Act has been believed by the learned Trial Court Judge, and therefore, the evidence was not considered under Section 506(2) IPC. Mr. Kakkad stated that though prima facie there was no evidence to convict the appellant for any obstruction in public duty or to deter the complainant in performing his duty as a public servant, only on a moral ground the conviction was followed on the basis of assumption.
Page 6 of 17 Uploaded by MR PANKAJ KUMAR PRASAD(HC00967) on Tue Aug 12 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Aug 12 22:33:21 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/605/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/08/2025 undefined
4. Per contra, learned APP Ms. Monali Bhatt by referring to the observation of the learned Trial Court Judge submitted that the judgment is on appreciation of evidence of the complainant as well as P.W.8 - Pankajkumar Girjashanker Joshi, who was a Deputy Engineer at Talala Gujarat Electricity Office and P.W.10 - Arvindkumar Mansukhlal Pader, who too was a Deputy Engineer at Junagadh office.
4.1 Learned APP Ms. Bhatt submitted that immediately the complainant had informed about the incident to the officers and the complainant himself in his evidence-in-chief had specifically stated about accused No.1, who had come near him and therefore, complainant was constrained to park his motorcycle. APP Ms. Bhatt stated that accused No.1 had questioned the complainant about the power cut and had also abused and pushed him down by beating him as well as by giving kick and fist blows, such evidence had come on record Page 7 of 17 Uploaded by MR PANKAJ KUMAR PRASAD(HC00967) on Tue Aug 12 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Aug 12 22:33:21 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/605/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/08/2025 undefined during the trial. Thus, on that basis Ms. Bhatt submitted that the conviction was ordered with the sentence as followed.
4.2 Referring to the evidence of P.W.8 and P.W.10, learned APP Ms. Bhatt stated that immediately the incident was informed to the officer and the evidence came on record by way of P.W.10 that the complainant was on duty and necessary attendance register (Exh.33) was produced on record to show the time of duty. The incident, corroborated with the fact that he was on duty, itself proves the offence under Sections 186 and 332 IPC of the obstruction in public duty and that the appellant had deterred complainant from performing his duty had been proved.
5. After hearing both the sides, perused the impugned judgment and order. The learned Trial Court Judge has not believed the case of any insult in public view under the Atrocities Act, Page 8 of 17 Uploaded by MR PANKAJ KUMAR PRASAD(HC00967) on Tue Aug 12 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Aug 12 22:33:21 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/605/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/08/2025 undefined observing that such kind of dispute do arise, but such quarrel could not be on account of the person being the member of Scheduled Caste, thus, the offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the Atrocities Act was not believed. The settlement under Sections 504 and 114 of IPC was raised before the Trial Court and finding it compoundable, it was allowed.
5.1 The charge was framed under Exh.1 against three of the accused noting that on 26.11.2003 at about 22.30 hours at the outskirt village Matasuriya, opposite the bus-stand, on the road, when the complainant as helper of GEB was on duty as a public servant, at that time, all the accused, abetting each other, with criminal intention had abused the complainant and had given the cause for incitement and threatened to take his life, and had assaulted with the weapon like stick and caused injury, thereby, were found to have deterred and obstructed in his public Page 9 of 17 Uploaded by MR PANKAJ KUMAR PRASAD(HC00967) on Tue Aug 12 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Aug 12 22:33:21 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/605/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/08/2025 undefined duty.
5.2 The allegation is jointly against three of them in abetment. The allegation further is that they were wielded with sticks, and assault was with the stick. Exh.24, the medical certificate of community health center does not refer to any assault by stick. The history suggests that it was kick and fist blow. Further Exh.24 notes that there were no visible external injury. In view of the certificate at Exh.24 the injury, as alleged could not be said to be proved. Further, the history does not specify of assault by all the accused or specifically by the present appellant. 5.3 The deposition of the complainant as P.W.4 suggests that he was on motorcycle, but at that time when the alleged incident had taken place the complainant was not actually performing any public duty, however, it can be said that he was on his duty at that time, which could be proved Page 10 of 17 Uploaded by MR PANKAJ KUMAR PRASAD(HC00967) on Tue Aug 12 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Aug 12 22:33:21 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/605/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/08/2025 undefined by the evidence of attendance register produced by P.W.10 at Exh.33.
5.4 The cross-examination shows that there was crowd, which had gathered. The witness as complainant also stated that none of them from the crowd had stated any abusive words in the form of casteist remarks. This itself proves that only three of the accused were not present. The question was regarding stoppage of power supply and the complainant has affirmed that many times people would come before him and would request him for continuing the power supply. In the cross-examination, he has affirmed that at the time of incident many people had gathered there and there was outcry and he was pushed by some unknown person from the crowd and therefore, he got hurt.
5.5 There is no any specific allegation against accused No.1. In the cross-examination, Page 11 of 17 Uploaded by MR PANKAJ KUMAR PRASAD(HC00967) on Tue Aug 12 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Aug 12 22:33:21 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/605/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/08/2025 undefined complainant further affirmed that on the basis of suspicion, he had named him, but actually accused No.1 had not beaten him. He also affirmed that he was not knowing the unknown persons and could also not specifically state whether accused Nos.2 and 3 were present there.
5.6 The complainant appears to have not reached his workplace. He stated that none of the accused had stopped him in performing of the duty. However, the crowd had gathered there and because of hustle, it disturbed him and he went in depression and therefore, he had not attended his workplace. It appears that P.W.8 - Pankajkumar Joshi was informed about the incident, since the complainant at that time was working as Rural Helper in G.E.B. office and his duty of work was for six villages and his work was for supply of power. According to P.W.8, the incident had occurred on 26.11.2003, but he was informed about the same on the next day i.e. on 27.11.2003 by Page 12 of 17 Uploaded by MR PANKAJ KUMAR PRASAD(HC00967) on Tue Aug 12 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Aug 12 22:33:21 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/605/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/08/2025 undefined his Junior Engineer (P.W.10) as the dispute of power supply. He reiterated the information given to him in his deposition. P.W.8 was not an eye witness to the incident. He stated in his evidence-in-chief that the person alleged had not beaten the complainant with the stick. He had also affirmed that he has not stated in his statement before the police of any obstruction in the service duty of the complainant as a public servant.
5.7 P.W.10 has informed about the information, which he received of the incident. He was informed by lineman - Kalubhai. P.W.10 is not an eye witness to the incident. Kalubhai Makwana, was examined as P.W.7 in the Court, his evidence clearly shows that he has not named any of the accused before the Court. While the evidence suggests that the complainant before the officer had stated that there was a dispute and he wanted to file a police complaint, but had not given the Page 13 of 17 Uploaded by MR PANKAJ KUMAR PRASAD(HC00967) on Tue Aug 12 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Aug 12 22:33:21 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/605/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/08/2025 undefined names of the persons, who had raised the dispute, nor the complainant had informed about the incident, how it had occurred.
5.8 From the evidence of P.W.10, it also transpires, that often people would come and meet the officers, in cases of cut in power supply in villages. One of the rickshaw man - Rameshbhai Somabhai (PW6) was examined, but he has also not supported the prosecution case. He stated that he had heard it from the public, but had not seen the incident.
5.9 In view of the evidence, as referred hereinabove, the complaint appears to be filed since the complainant was late in his duty. The dispute arose because of power-cut and people had gathered questioning him of the cut in power supply. His own deposition suggests that he got stressed because of questioning of the people and in depression he could not go on his duty. At the Page 14 of 17 Uploaded by MR PANKAJ KUMAR PRASAD(HC00967) on Tue Aug 12 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Aug 12 22:33:21 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/605/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/08/2025 undefined time when the incident occurred, it cannot be said that he was actually performing any public duty. His evidence shows that he was on his motor vehicle. The evidence of P.W.10 also suggests that it was very normal for people to question them about the cut in power supply. The medical evidence at Exh.24 does not show any injury and the evidence itself is not clear about, who had pushed the complainant to sustain any injury. Accused Nos.2 and 3 along with accused No.1 and crowd was also there. It has not become clear, as to who had injured or pushed the complainant. Though, the prosecution case states that all three accused had come with sticks, no injury has been caused by the stick. The prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. Most of the witnesses have not supported the prosecution case, even the complainant's evidence clarifies that the crowd was there. Though, the settlement purshis was filed, but it cannot be Page 15 of 17 Uploaded by MR PANKAJ KUMAR PRASAD(HC00967) on Tue Aug 12 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Aug 12 22:33:21 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/605/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/08/2025 undefined observed from the examination-in-chief that under such settlement, the complainant has not stated the facts, which had actually transpired. 5.10 The cross-examination further clarifies that the incident had occurred when people had gathered there and had asked him about the often cut in power supply. The complainant himself clarifies that he was not obstructed or deterred from performing his duty, but because of the crowd and the outburst, he got disturbed and under depression he could not go for his duty and the incident was only because of cut in power supply.
6. In view of the above observations, this Court is of an opinion that the learned Trial Court Judge has committed error in appreciating the evidence. The conviction is merely on assumptions, while no documentary or oral evidence established the case on record. The Page 16 of 17 Uploaded by MR PANKAJ KUMAR PRASAD(HC00967) on Tue Aug 12 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Aug 12 22:33:21 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/605/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/08/2025 undefined testimony of the complainant as well as the prosecution witnesses could not prove the case against the present appellant. There is no credible evidence to convict the accused.
7. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The conviction and sentence of the accused passed by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Veraval vide judgment and order dated in 13.03.2007 in Atrocity Case No.18/2005 is set aside. The appellant is acquitted from all the charges. Bail bound stands discharged. Registry is directed to send the Record and Proceedings back to the concerned Trial Court forthwith.
(GITA GOPI,J) Pankaj/10 Page 17 of 17 Uploaded by MR PANKAJ KUMAR PRASAD(HC00967) on Tue Aug 12 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Aug 12 22:33:21 IST 2025