Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Jilubhai Tisubhai Aahir on 13 August, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/759/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/08/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 759 of 2011
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE S.V. PINTO
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting No
==========================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
JILUBHAI TISUBHAI AAHIR & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS. C.M. SHAH, APP for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR LR PATHAN(2370) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3,4,5
RULE SERVED for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 2,3,4,5
UNSERVED EXPIRED (R) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 6
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE S.V. PINTO
Date : 13/08/2025
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 Additional Sessions Judge, Bhavnagar (hereinafter referred to as "the learned Trial Court") in Special Atro. Case No. 17/2006 on 30.12.2010, whereby, the learned Trial Court has acquitted the respondents for the offence punishable under Sections 452, 504, 506(2) and Page 1 of 17 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Thu Aug 14 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 14 22:00:33 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/759/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/08/2025 undefined 114 of Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 135 of the BP Act and Sections 3(1)(10)(11) 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 18.03.2006 at around 09.00 am, Jayaben - the sister of the complainant - Dineshbhai Manglabhai Viras had gone to fill water at the village well at village Satpada, Taluka Gariyadhar and the accused no. 5 abused her, assaulted her and restrained her from drawing water from the well. Jayaben returned home and after some time, the accused nos. 1 to 4 illegally trespassed into the house of the complainant and threw their vessels, broke the water pot and caught hold of the plait of witness Ujiben, pulled her and abused her and all the accused were armed with weapons like sword, scythe, etc. and they hurled caste slurs Page 2 of 17 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Thu Aug 14 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 14 22:00:33 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/759/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/08/2025 undefined against the complainant and his family members. The complainant - Dineshbhai Manglabhai Viras filed the complaint at the Gariyadhar Police Station under Section 452, 504, 506(2) and 114 of the Indian Penal Code, Section 135 of the BP Act and Section 3(1)(10)(11) of the Atrocity Act which came to be registered at Gariyadhar Police Station I -
C.R. No. 24 of 2006.
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, Gariyadhar and as the said offences against the accused were exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the case was committed to the Sessions Court, Bhavnaghar as per the provisions of Section 209 of Code of Criminal Procedure and the case was registered as Special Atro. Case No. 17/2006 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 Page 3 of 17 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Thu Aug 14 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 14 22:00:33 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/759/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/08/2025 undefined provided to the accused as per the provisions of Section 207 of the Code. A charge at Exh. 3 was framed against the accused and the statements of the accused was recorded at Exhs. 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 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 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 Page 4 of 17 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Thu Aug 14 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 14 22:00:33 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/759/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/08/2025 undefined 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 respondents. 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 respondent 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 and learned advocate Mr. L.R. Pathan for the respondent nos. 1 to 5. 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 Page 5 of 17 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Thu Aug 14 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 14 22:00:33 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/759/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/08/2025 undefined 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.
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 was a possible view, there is no reason for the Appellate Court to interfere in the same.
Page 6 of 17 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Thu Aug 14 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 14 22:00:33 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/759/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/08/2025 undefined
7. To prove the offence against the accused, the prosecution has in all examined ten witnesses. PW1 - Dineshbhai Manglabhai Viras examined at Exh. 10 is the complainant and he has narrated the facts as stated in the complaint which is produced at Exh. 14. The witness has stated that all the accused were armed with weapons and at the time of the incident he was at home when his sister returned without filling water at the well. His sister had told him, that the accused no. 5 - Rekhaben Jilubhai did not allow her to fill water and hurled caste slurs against her and abused her. He took his tempo and went away to Palitana and when he returned at around 08.00 pm, he saw his mother Ujiben, sister Jayaben and sister-in-law Rekhaben standing outside of the house and they told him to turn the tempo and take it to the Police Station. He took all of them in the tempo to the Police Station and at that time, the accused no. 3 - Ranjitsinh caught hold of the handle of the tempo and asked him to wait. Ranjitsinh had a scythe in his hand but he drove his tempo and went to the Gariyadhar Police Station and on the way his mother Page 7 of 17 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Thu Aug 14 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 14 22:00:33 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/759/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/08/2025 undefined Ujiben had told him that all the accused had assaulted them, broke the water pot and threw their vessels in the house and he filed the complaint which is produced at Exh.
14. During the cross-examination by the learned advocate for the accused, the witness has stated that the well is situated just opposite his house across the road and is at a distance of 10 to 15 feet away from the bus stand. It is situated on the Gariyadhar-Palitana road and is congested and teeming with people and vehicles. His sister had told him that there were many women filling water at the well. That earlier he had filed a case under the Atrocity Act against one Patel and had thereafter entered into a compromise with him and at the time of the incident, he felt that he had to file a case under the Atrocity Act. After the incident of his sister Jayaben in the morning, he took his tempo and went away and was out for the whole day. He is not an eyewitness to the incident that occurred later and his house is situated very near to the bus stand and if anyone from the house would shout, a person at the bus stand would hear the shouts. That he had returned home Page 8 of 17 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Thu Aug 14 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 14 22:00:33 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/759/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/08/2025 undefined at around 08.00 pm and went to the Police Station after that.
7.1 PW2 - Jayaben Manglabhai examined at Exh. 16 is the sister of the complainant and has fully supported the case of the prosecution. During the cross-examination, the witness has stated that women from all castes come to the well to fill water and the accused are residing at a distance of about two to three minutes away from their house and she is known to all the accused. That earlier she had filed a case under the Atrocity Act against a person from the Koli community but she doesn't know whether a compromise was entered into between them. That if any person is standing at the bus stand, they would be able to see the women filling water at the well and at the time of the incident, there were many women drawing water from the well. None of the members from her community have ever complained that they have been restrained from filling water at the well and after the first incident in the morning, they did not go anywhere to file any complaint and at the time of the incident, there were many passengers at the bus Page 9 of 17 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Thu Aug 14 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 14 22:00:33 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/759/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/08/2025 undefined stand. The second incident occurred at around 06.00 pm in the evening and they shouted at that time, but nobody came to their house.
7.2 PW3 - Rekhaben Anilbhai examined at Exh. 17 is the sister-in-law of the complainant,and she has stated that at around 06.00 pm, the accused came to her house, abused them, caught hold of the plait of her mother-in-law and pulled her and took her out of the house. The accused broke the water pot and threw all the vessels and thereafter, the accused abused them and went away. The accused were armed with weapons. In the cross- examination, the witness has admitted that the well is near the bus stand and their house is near to the bus stand and people from all community fill water at the well and if any noise is made in their house, it would be heard at the bus stand.
7.3 PW4 - Dalpatbhai Manglabhai examined at Exh. 18 is the brother of the complainant and was not present at the time of the incident. He is a hearsay witness and in the cross-examination, he has admitted that he was out at the Page 10 of 17 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Thu Aug 14 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 14 22:00:33 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/759/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/08/2025 undefined time of the incident.
7.4 PW5 - Rudabhai Malabhai examined at Exh. 19 and PW6 - Hipabhai Kamabhai examined at Exh. 21 are the panch witnesses of the panchnama of the place of offence which is produced at Exh. 20. Both the witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution and have been declared hostile.
7.5 PW7 - Bhikhubhai Laxmanbhai Der examined at Exh. 30 is the PSI who has recorded the complaint of the complainant and he has produced the fax message sent to the Superintendent of Police, Bhavnagar at Exh. 31 and the Special Report at Exh. 32. During the cross-examination by the learned advocate for the accused the witness has stated that the complainant came with his brother, sister and family members and none of them had stated that they wanted to go to the hospital for treatment. 7.6 PW8 - Arjanbhai Kankabhai Vagadiya examined at Exh. 33 is the Investigating Officer who has narrated the procedure undertaken by him during investigation. During the cross-examination, the witness has stated that he had Page 11 of 17 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Thu Aug 14 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 14 22:00:33 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/759/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/08/2025 undefined taken over the investigation on 19.03.2006 at around 09.00 am and at that time, he was a Deputy Superintendent of Police and he was not a Special Officer of the SC/ST cell. He had visited the place of offence and the well was at a distance of about 50 to 60 feet away from the house of the complainant and situated on the main road. During investigation, no persons from the community of the complainant had supported the case of the complainant and no medical certificate of any witness was seized by him during investigation. During investigation, it was not found that any of the accused were under the influence of alcohol. 7.7 PW9 - Popatbhai Govindbhai examined at Exh. 42 and PW10 - Rajubhai Dilubhai examined at Exh. 43 are the panch witnesses of the arrest panchnama which is produced at Exh. 34. Both the witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution and have been declared hostile.
8. On appreciation of the entire evidence of the prosecution, as per the case of the prosecution, the first incident has occurred at around 09.00 am when Jayaben - Page 12 of 17 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Thu Aug 14 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 14 22:00:33 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/759/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/08/2025 undefined the sister of the complainant - Dineshbhai Manglabhai Viras went to fill water at the well and at that time, the accused no. 5 restrained her from filling water and hurled caste slurs against her and she returned without filling water at the well. The second incident has occurred at around 06.00 pm when the sister, mother and sister-in-law of the complainant were at home and the accused nos. 2 and 3 armed with weapons came and abused them, threw their vessels down and broke the water pot. Admittedly, the complainant - Dineshbhai Manglabhai Viras is not an eyewitness to any of the incident and when he returned at around 08.00 pm, his mother, sister and sister-in-law told him about the incident and he took them to the Police Station and filed the complaint. The FIR is produced on record and as per the FIR, the information has been received at the Police Station on 18.03.2006 at around 23.30 hours. There is no explanation as to why when the incident had occurred in the morning at 09.00 am at the well and thereafter at 06.00 pm; the sister, mother or sister-in-law of the complainant did not go to the Police Page 13 of 17 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Thu Aug 14 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 14 22:00:33 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/759/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/08/2025 undefined Station to file the complaint. It has emerged on record that PW2 - Jayaben Manglabhai had earlier filed a case under the Atrocity Act against a person from the Koli community and the complainant has also earlier filed a case under the Atrocity Act against a person from the Patel community but there is no explanation as to why they waited till 23.30 hours to file the complaint. The caste certificate of the complainant is produced at Exh. 29 but the caste of the complainant is not proved as no witnesses have been examined to prove the caste certificate and as per the case of the prosecution, the first incident occurred at the well in the morning and at that time there were many women from different communities who had come to fill water of the well and there were many independent witnesses but none of the witnesses have been examined before the learned Trial Court. The second incident which as per the case of the prosecution has occurred at around 06.00 pm at the residence of the complainant which is in a residential area and has many neighbours and there would be independent persons around but no independent witnesses have been Page 14 of 17 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Thu Aug 14 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 14 22:00:33 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/759/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/08/2025 undefined examined before the learned Trial Court. It has also emerged on record in the deposition of the complainant - Dineshbhai Manglabhai, PW2 - Jayaben Manglabhai, PW3 Rekhabhai Anilbhai and PW4 - Dalpatbhai Manglabhai that the house is very near to the bus stand and if anyone shouts in their house any person standing at the bus stand would hear their shouts. The Investigating Officer has also admitted that the house of the complainant is very near to the bus stand and is situated on the main road which is the road between Garihadar and Palitana and is always teeming with vehicles and people but no independent witnesses have been examined before the learned Trial Court. Moreover, as per the case of the prosecution the plait of Ujiben - the mother of the complainant was pulled and she was dragged and thrown out of the house but Ujiben has expired pending trial and her evidence could not be recorded before the learned Trial Court. The entire evidence of the prosecution has been discussed in detail by the learned Trial Court.
Page 15 of 17 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Thu Aug 14 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 14 22:00:33 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/759/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/08/2025 undefined
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 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 Additional Page 16 of 17 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Thu Aug 14 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 14 22:00:33 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/759/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/08/2025 undefined Sessions Judge, Bhavnagar in Special Atro. Case No. 17/2006 on 30.12.2010, 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 17 of 17 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Thu Aug 14 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 14 22:00:33 IST 2025