Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Dineshbhai Vitthalbhai Chauhan on 13 August, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1380/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/08/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1380 of 2011
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE S.V. PINTO Sd/-
================================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
√
================================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
DINESHBHAI VITTHALBHAI CHAUHAN
================================================================
Appearance:
MS.C.M.SHAH, APP for the Appellant(s) No. 1
BAILABLE WARRANT UNSERVED for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1
RULE SERVED for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1
================================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE S.V. PINTO
Date : 13/08/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant - State under Section 378(1)(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') against the judgment and the order passed by the learned 5th Additional District Judge, Bhavnagar (hereinafter referred to as 'the learned Appellate Court') Page 1 of 17 Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Thu Aug 14 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 14 22:00:20 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1380/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/08/2025 undefined in Criminal Appeal No. 27 of 2010 on 08.08.2011 qua the original accused no.2 - Dineshbhai Viththalbhai Chauhan, whereby, the learned Appellate Court has quashed and set aside the judgment and order passed by the learned 4th Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhavnagar, (hereinafter referred to as 'the learned Trial Court), in Criminal Case No. 6527 of 2009 on 16.08.2010, whereby, the learned Trial Court convicted and sentenced both the original accused to simple imprisonment of 1 year and fine of Rs.5,000/-, and in default, simple imprisonment of 3 months for the offence punishable under Section 356 of the Indian Penal Code and rigorous imprisonment of 2 years and fine of Rs.5,000/-, and in default, simple imprisonment of 3 months for the offence punishable under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as 'the IPC'). The learned Trial Court was pleased to further order both the sentences to run concurrently. 1.1. The respondents are hereinafter referred to as 'the accused' as they stood in the rank and file in the original case, for the sake of convenience, clarity and brevity. Page 2 of 17 Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Thu Aug 14 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 14 22:00:20 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1380/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/08/2025 undefined
2. The relevant facts leading to filing of the present appeal are as under:
2.1. On 05.02.2009, at around 16:30 hours, the complainant, Falguniben Ketanbhai Shah, was walking at Gita Chowk, near Krishnanagar, Derasar, and at that time, both the accused came on a motorcycle and the pillion rider snatched the gold chain from the neck of the complainant and fled away. The gold chain weighed about 2 tolas and was worth Rs. 10,000, and the complainant filed the complaint under Sections 356, 379, 114 of the IPC at the Bhavnagar 'B' Division Police Station, which came to be registered at Bhavnagar 'B' Division Police Station, I-
C.R.No.45 of 2009.
2.2. After registration of the FIR, the investigation was carried out by the concerned Investigating Officer and after having sufficient material against the accused, the charge sheet came to be filed against the accused before the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Bhavnagar.
Page 3 of 17 Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Thu Aug 14 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 14 22:00:20 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1380/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/08/2025 undefined 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 was framed by the learned Trial Court at Exh.5 and the statement of the accused was recorded at Exhs.6 and 7 respectively, wherein, the accused denied all the contents of the charge and the entire evidence of the prosecution was taken on record. The prosecution examined 11 witnesses and produced 05 documentary evidences in support of the case. 2.4. After the closing pursis was submitted by the learned APP, the further statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Code was recorded wherein the accused denied the evidence on record. After hearing the arguments of the learned APP and learned advocate for the accused and after perusing the documents on record, the learned Trial Court, by the impugned judgment and order dated 16.08.2010, was pleased to convict both the accused for the offence under Sections 356 and 379 of the IPC and Page 4 of 17 Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Thu Aug 14 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 14 22:00:20 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1380/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/08/2025 undefined sentence them as mentioned above.
2.5. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Trial Court, the accused no. 2 - Dineshbhai Viththalbhai Chauhan preferred Criminal Appeal No.27 of 2010 before the learned Sessions Court, Bhavnagar, whereby, the appeal preferred by the accused no. 2 came to be allowed and the learned Appellate Court quashed and set aside the judgment and order dated 16.08.2010 in Criminal Case No. 6527 of 2009 passed by the learned Trial Court and acquitted the accused no. 2 from the offence with which he was convicted.
3. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Appellate Court, the appellant - State has filed the present appeal mainly stating that the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Appellate Court is illegal, arbitrary and without properly appreciating the facts of the case and the materials available on record. The learned Appellate Court has erred in appreciating the evidence and without Page 5 of 17 Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Thu Aug 14 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 14 22:00:20 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1380/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/08/2025 undefined there being cogent and substantial reasons, acquitted the accused no.2. The learned Appellate Court has erred in appreciating the oral as well as the documentary evidences produced by the prosecution in its true spirit and straightway arrived at the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubts. That the judgment and order passed by the learned Trial Court is just, legal and proper and it did not require interference of the the Appellate Court, and therefore, the order of acquittal passed by the learned Appellate Court requires to be quashed and set aside.
4. Heard learned APP Ms.C.M.Shah for the appellant - State. Though served, the respondent has not appeared either in person or through an advocate. Perused the impugned judgment and order of acquittal passed by the Appellate Court as well as judgment and order of conviction passed by the learned Trial Court and have re-appreciated the entire evidence of the prosecution on record of the case.
5. Learned APP Ms.C.M.Shah for the appellant - State Page 6 of 17 Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Thu Aug 14 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 14 22:00:20 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1380/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/08/2025 undefined has taken this Court through the entire evidence produced by the prosecution and has vehemently argued that the learned Appellate Court has not appreciated the evidence properly and the prosecution has produced cogent evidence to prove the case and has successfully proved the case against the accused but the Appellate Court has not considered the same and has acquitted the accused. The judgment and order of acquittal passed by the learned Appellate Court is contrary to law, evidence on record and principles of justice. The judgment and order of acquittal passed by learned Appellate Court is based on inferences, not warranted by facts of the case and also on presumption, not permitted by law. Learned APP has urged this Court to quash and set aside the impugned judgment and order of acquittal and to find the accused guilty for the said offence. Learned APP has urged this Court to allow the present appeal and impose maximum sentence on the accused.
6. It is a settled principle of law that in an appeal against acquittal, the Appellate Court is circumscribed by limitation that Page 7 of 17 Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Thu Aug 14 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 14 22:00:20 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1380/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/08/2025 undefined no interference has to be made in the order of acquittal unless after appreciation of the evidence produced before the learned Trial Court, it appears that there are some manifest illegality or perversity which could not have been possibly arrived at by the Court. It is also a settled principle that there is no embargo on the Appellate Court to review the evidence but, generally the order of acquittal shall not be interfered with as the presumption of innocence of the accused is further strengthened by the order of acquittal. The golden thread which runs through the web of administration of justice in criminal cases is that if two views are possible on the evidence adduced in the case of the prosecution i.e. (i) guilt of the accused and (ii) his innocence, the view, which is in favour of the accused, should be adopted, and if the trial Court has taken the view in favour of the accused, the Appellate Court should not disturb the findings of the acquittal. The Appellate Court can interfere with the judgment and order of acquittal only when there are compelling and substantial reasons and the order is clearly unreasonable and where the Appellate Court comes to Page 8 of 17 Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Thu Aug 14 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 14 22:00:20 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1380/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/08/2025 undefined conclusion that based on the evidence, the conviction is a must.
7. As per the settled principles of law in acquittal appeals, the evidence of the prosecution on record is re- appreciated and PW-1 Falguniben Ketanbhai Shah, examined at Exh.8, is the complainant, who has narrated the facts as stated in her complaint produced at Exh.9. As per the complaint, the witness has stated that she and her friend Paritaben were walking from Gita Chowk to Krishnanagar Derasar, and near Suparna flats, the accused came the opposition direction on a motorcycle and the pillion rider snatched her gold chain and they fled away. The complaint has been filed at Exh.9, and during the cross- examination by the learned advocate for the accused, the witness has stated that after filing of the complaint, when the thief was arrested, the police called her to the police station, and there was one person at the police station, and the police had asked her whether he was the person, who had snatched the chain. She had some doubts but she identified him as the person, who had snatched the chain. During the cross-examination by the learned Page 9 of 17 Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Thu Aug 14 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 14 22:00:20 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1380/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/08/2025 undefined advocate for the accused, the witness has stated that she had informed her family members about the incident, and at the time of the incident, a number of people had gathered there. Her husband had asked her to file the complaint, and she had gone along with her husband to file the complaint. The police had inquired from her husband about the incident, and after the complaint was written down, she had affixed her signature. When she had gone for the second time to the police station, there were other ladies whose chains had been snatched, and the police had asked her whether the person, who was in the police station, was the person, who snatched the chain and she had identified him. The witness has admitted that the incident had taken place on a public road, which was 80 to 100 ft. wide, adjourned to the road, construction of a house was going on and there were many labourers at that place. At the place of incident, there are residences and flats on both sides of the road and it is a congested area.
7.1 PW-2, Shantilal Babulal Bhanbaniya,, examined at Page 10 of 17 Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Thu Aug 14 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 14 22:00:20 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1380/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/08/2025 undefined Exh.13 and PW-3, Narandas Lakhumal, examined at Exh.15, are the panch witnesses of the panchnama of the place of offence, which is produced at Exh.14. 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. 7.2. PW-4, Jayantibhai Lakshmanbhai Bariya, examined at Exh.16, and PW-5, Ghanshyambhai Keshubhai Rathod, examined at Exh.20, are the panch witnesses of the point-out panchnama, produced at Exh.17. 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, but nothing to support the case of the prosecution has come on record.
7.3. PW-6, Mohammad Rizwan Liyaqathhan, examined at Exh.21, has stated that he was working at a J.K.Jewellers on Thavar Road and the police had asked him to affix his signature on the panchnama, which is produced at Exh.22. The witness has not supported the case of the prosecution and has been declared hostile and has been cross-examined at length by the learned APP, Page 11 of 17 Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Thu Aug 14 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 14 22:00:20 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1380/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/08/2025 undefined but nothing to support the case of the prosecution has come on record.
7.4. PW-8, Mustakimbhai Mohammad Salim Sheikh, examined at Exh.24, has stated that he was working at a jewellers shop, and the Bhavnagar 'B' Division Police personnel had come to their shop and asked him his name and had taken his signature. The police have not recovered anything from the shop, and he could not identify any persons brought to his shop. The witness has not supported the case of the prosecution and has been declared hostile, and has been cross-examined at length by the learned APP, but nothing to support the case of the prosecution has come on record.
7.5. PW-9, Joghani Abhay Rameshbhai, examined at Exh.25, was working as an engineer near Krishnagar Jain Upashray and he has stated that between 3:00p.m. to 4:00p.m., he heard a lot of shouting and when he went outside, he saw many persons had gathered there, and there was one lady, who had stated that one person on the motorcycle had snatched her chain but he does not Page 12 of 17 Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Thu Aug 14 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 14 22:00:20 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1380/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/08/2025 undefined know the name of the person. The witness has not supported the case of the prosecution, and has been declared hostile. 7.6. PW-10, P.S.I. M.K.Makwana, examined at Exh.28, was working at the Bhavnagar 'B' Division Police Station and is the Investigating Officer who had drawn up the panchnama of the place of offence, and had thereafter handed over the investigation to P.S.I. S.M.Sagar.
7.7. PW-11, R.P.Jhala, examined at Exh.30, 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 no gold chain was recovered from the possession of the accused nos. 1 or 2 and he could not identify the muddamal and he did not seize the motorcycle that was used in the offence during investigation.
8. On minute appreciation of the entire evidence of the prosecution, the complainant, Falguniben Ketanbhai Shah, has Page 13 of 17 Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Thu Aug 14 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 14 22:00:20 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1380/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/08/2025 undefined filed the complaint, which is produced at Exh.9, but she has not stated the number of the motorcycle or the description of the persons that had snatched her gold chain. Moreover, the witness has not produced any bills for the chain, and has not described the chain that was snatched and there is no iota of evidence about any gold chain on record. As per the say of the complainant, she and her friend Paritaben were walking home, but the said Paritaben has not been examined as a witness before the learned Trial Court. Moreover, the complainant has not narrated the colour of the clothes that the accused were wearing, not has given any description about the accused, even though, she has stated that they were coming from the opposite direction and she would have seen the clothes that they were wearing or the number of the motorcycle, but no such details have come on record. The point out panchnama produced at Exh.17 is a panchnama, which has been drawn for the offences registered at I-C.R.No.216 of 2009, I- C.R.No. 45 of 2009 and I-C.R.No.146 of 2009. It appears that there were three offences registered at the Bhavnagar 'B' Division Page 14 of 17 Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Thu Aug 14 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 14 22:00:20 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1380/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/08/2025 undefined Police Station, and once the accused were arrested, the point out panchnama for the three offences were drawn in the same panchnama. The panch witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution and neither has the Investigating Officer narrated any details about the point out panchnama, which is produced at Exh.17. As per the case of the prosecution, the muddamal gold pieces were recovered from PW-8, Mustakimbhai Mohammed Salim Sheikh, who was working at the jeweller's shop of Mohammed Habib and Brothers, but the witness has not supported the case of the prosecution and has been declared hostile, and no evidence that the maddamal was recovered by the Investigating Officer has come on record. If the panchnama produced at Exh.22, which is the panchnama, by which, the muddamal was recovered is perused, it appears that the recovery is shown for the offence registered at Bhavnagar 'B' Division Police Station, I-C.R.No.45 of 2009, wherein, a piece of gold of 20.200 grams of 20 carat, worth Rs.25,500/-, for the offence registered at Bhavnagar 'B' Division Police Station, I-C.R.No.146 of 2009, a Page 15 of 17 Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Thu Aug 14 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 14 22:00:20 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1380/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/08/2025 undefined piece of gold weighing 7.110 grams of 20 carats, worth Rs.8,000/- and for the offence registered at Bhavnagar 'B' Division Police Station, I-C.R.No. 216 of 2009, a piece of gold weighing 20.200 grams of 20 carats, worth Rs. 25,500/- was seized. It is on record that no gold chains were seized and the muddamal has been recovered in three cases, but there is no iota of evidence that the muddamal that was recovered belonged to the complainant of this case. There is no iota of evidence on record that on the date of the incident, the complainant was, in fact, wearing a gold chain, which weighed about 2 tolas and the entire evidence has been appreciated in a just and proper manner by the learned Appellate Court.
9. In view of the above, the learned Appellate 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 Appellate Court has appreciated all the evidence and this Court is of the considered opinion that the learned Appellate Court was completely justified in acquitting the accused of the charges leveled against them. The Page 16 of 17 Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Thu Aug 14 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 14 22:00:20 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1380/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/08/2025 undefined findings recorded by the learned Appellate Court are absolutely just and proper and no illegality or infirmity has been committed by the learned Appellate Court and this Court is in complete agreement with the findings, ultimate conclusion and the resultant order of acquittal recorded by the learned Appellate Court. This Court finds no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Appellate Court and the present appeal is devoid of merits and resultantly, the same is dismissed.
10. The impugned judgment and the order passed by the learned 5th Additional District Judge, Bhavnagar in Criminal Appeal No.27 of 2010 on 08.08.2011 is hereby confirmed.
11. Bail bond stands cancelled. Record and proceedings be sent back to the learned Appellate Court forthwith.
Sd/-
(S. V. PINTO,J) F.S.KAZI.....
Page 17 of 17 Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Thu Aug 14 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 14 22:00:20 IST 2025