Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Ravjibhai Bhaylalbhai Vasava on 10 December, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/916/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/12/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 916 of 2010
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SANJEEV J.THAKER
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
RAVJIBHAI BHAYLALBHAI VASAVA & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR YUVRAJ BRAHMBHATT, APP for the Appellant - State
ABATED for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1
BAILABLE WARRANT SERVED for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 2,3
MR. JAY G THAKER(9944) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 2,3
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SANJEEV J.THAKER
Date : 10/12/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Feeling aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment and order of acquittal dated 15.03.2010 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.6, Vadodara, in Sessions Case No.158 of 2007 for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 324, 452, 427 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act, the appellant - State of Gujarat has preferred this appeal under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, "the Code"). Page 1 of 13 Uploaded by M.H. DAVE(HC00193) on Wed Dec 10 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Dec 17 21:16:24 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/916/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/12/2025 undefined
2. The prosecution case as unfolded during the trial before the lower Court is that on 29.07.2006 at about 11:00 hours, at Sarving village, the accused persons with the help of each other, illegally entered into he complainant's house and the accused persons damaged the house of the complainant and accused No.1 inflicted iron pipe blow on the head of the complainant, accused No.2 inflicted pipe blow on the leg of the complainant and accused No.3 by giving fists blow tot he complainant and thereby, committed an offence as alleged. Therefore, the complaint was lodged against the respondent/s-accused.
3. After investigation, sufficient prima facie evidence was found against the accused person/s and therefore charge- sheet was filed in the competent criminal Court. The charge was framed against the accused person/s. The accused pleaded not guilty and came to be tried.
4. In order to bring home the charge, the prosecution has examined the witnesses and also produced various documentary evidence before the trial Court, which are described in the impugned judgment.
5. After hearing both the parties and after analysis Page 2 of 13 Uploaded by M.H. DAVE(HC00193) on Wed Dec 10 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Dec 17 21:16:24 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/916/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/12/2025 undefined of evidence adduced by the prosecution, the learned trial Judge acquitted the accused for the offences for which they were charged, by holding that the prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt.
6. Learned APP for the appellant - State has pointed out the facts of the case and having taken this Court through both, oral and documentary evidence, recorded before the learned trial Court, would submit that the learned trial Court has failed to appreciate the evidence in true sense and perspective; and that the trial Court has committed error in acquitting the accused. It is submitted that the learned trial Court ought not to have given much emphasis to the contradictions and/or omissions appearing in the evidence and ought to have given weightage to the dots that connect the accused with the offence in question. It is submitted that the learned trial Court has erroneously come to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove its case. It is also submitted that the learned Judge ought to have seen that the evidence produced on record is reliable and believable and it was proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused had committed an offence in question. It is, therefore, submitted that this Court may allow this appeal by appreciating the evidence led before the learned trial Court. Page 3 of 13 Uploaded by M.H. DAVE(HC00193) on Wed Dec 10 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Dec 17 21:16:24 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/916/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/12/2025 undefined
7. As against that, learned advocate for the respondent/s would support the impugned judgment passed by the learned trial Court and has submitted that the learned trial Court has not committed any error in acquitting the accused. The trial Court has taken possible view as the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, it is prayed to dismiss the present appeal by confirming the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned trial Court.
8. I have heard the submissions made by the learned advocates for the respective parties and also gone through the oral and documentary evidence, independently and dispassionately.
8.1 From the facts, it has come on record that according to the complainant, the first incident happened at the school premises, but, no complaint has been filed with respect to the alleged offence. The panch witnesses, who have been examined by the prosecution vide Exh.32, 35 and 36, viz., Udesinh Babarbhai Patanvadia (P.W.5), Shaileshbhai Somabhai (P.W.6) and Kantibhai Girdharbhai (P.W.7) have not supported the case of the prosecution. 8.2 The complainant - Mahant Bhagwatiprasad Page 4 of 13 Uploaded by M.H. DAVE(HC00193) on Wed Dec 10 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Dec 17 21:16:24 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/916/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/12/2025 undefined Sitaram, in the complaint, states that after he went to his residence, the said incident has happened.
P.W.8 - Dr.Ashish Vijaykumar Kothari who has been examined vide Exh.38 has stated that the complainant had informed him that Ravjibhai Bhailalbhai Vasava and his accomplice have physically assaulted him, whereas, before the doctor, the complainant does not give the names of sons of Ravjibhai Bhailalbhai Vasava.
If the police vardhi, which is produced vide Exh.44 is seen, which is with respect to the vardhi from the hospital, it only gives the name of one accused. 8.3 If the evidence of P.W.2 - Rakshaben Bhagvatiprasad Mahant, vide Exh.28, is taken into consideration, in her cross-examination, she does not state as to when the complainant got injured.
8.4 If the evidence of an independent witness viz., Ajitbhai Jayantibhai - P.W.3, who has been examined vide Exh.29, is taken into consideration, he does not give any details as to when the alleged incident had first taken place in the school; and if the complainant was immediately taken to the hospital, but the fact remains that the doctor, in his deposition, has stated that the complainant had come for treatment at 7:00 p.m. Page 5 of 13 Uploaded by M.H. DAVE(HC00193) on Wed Dec 10 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Dec 17 21:16:24 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/916/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/12/2025 undefined 8.5 The prosecution has also examined P.W.4 - Ratilal Ambalal Vasava vide Exh.20. From his deposition, he first stated that he was at the school and later on, in his deposition, he stated that he was at his residence and also stated that he immediately took the complainant to the hospital, which is contradicting the statement given by the doctor, who states that the complainant had come for treatment at 7:00 p.m. Moreover, according to the complainant, the incident had happened at around 10:30 a.m. to 11:00 a.m. 8.6 The panch of the panchanama of scene of offence - Exh.33 has been examined vide Exh.32 as P.W.5 - Udesinh Babarbhai Patanvadia. The panch - Kantibhai Girdharbhai (P.W.7) of the panchnama of muddamal produced vide Exh.37, has been examined vide Exh.36, who has not supported the case of the prosecution and has turned hostile. 8.7 Dr. Ashish Vijaykumar Kothari has been examined as P.W.8, vide Exh.38. He has also stated that the complainant has not informed him about the incident which had taken place at the home and as to when the said incident had happened.
The Investigating Officer - P.W.9 - Kanubhai Page 6 of 13 Uploaded by M.H. DAVE(HC00193) on Wed Dec 10 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Dec 17 21:16:24 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/916/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/12/2025 undefined Vichhiyabhai has been examined vide Exh.42 and the Police Station Officer - Khumansinh Ramsinh Vasava - P.W.10 has been examined vide Exh.48.
Thus, from the evidence on record, this Court finds that the prosecution has not been able to prove its case. The doctor, who has been examined vide Exh.38, has also stated that the injury could also be imaginary. The prosecution has not been able to prove the fact that after the incident, the complainant was rushed to the hospital for his treatment. From the doctor's evidence, the name of accused - Ravjibhai Bhailalbhai Vasava and his accomplice have been stated and the names of sons of accused No.1 - Ravjibhai Bhaillabhai Vasava have not been given to the doctor. 8.7 Moreover, there are lot of contradictions and discrepancies in the evidence of the prosecution. The prosecution has also not been able to prove that there is any injury in the chest or on the head of the complainant.
9. Further, learned APP is not in a position to show any evidence to take a contrary view in the matter or that the approach of the Court below is vitiated by some manifest illegality or that the decision is perverse or that the Court below has ignored the material evidence on record. In above view of the matter, I am of the considered opinion that the Page 7 of 13 Uploaded by M.H. DAVE(HC00193) on Wed Dec 10 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Dec 17 21:16:24 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/916/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/12/2025 undefined Court below was completely justified in passing impugned judgment and order.
10. Considering the impugned judgment, the trial Court has recorded that there was no direct evidence connecting the accused with the incident and there are contradictions in the depositions of the prosecution witnesses. In absence of the direct evidence, it cannot be proved that the accused are involved in the offence. Further, the motive of the accused behind the incident is not established. The trial Court has rightly considered all the evidence on record and passed the impugned judgment. The trial Court has rightly evaluated the facts and the evidence on record.
11. It is also a settled legal position that in acquittal appeal, the appellate court is not required to re-write the judgment or to give fresh reasoning, when the reasons assigned by the Court below are found to be just and proper. Such principle is down by the Apex Court in the case of State of Karnataka Vs. Hemareddy, reported in AIR 1981 SC 1417 wherein it is held as under:
"... This court has observed in Girija Nandini Devi V. Bigendra Nandini Chaudhary (1967)1 SCR 93:
(AIR 1967 SC 1124) that it is not the duty of the Page 8 of 13 Uploaded by M.H. DAVE(HC00193) on Wed Dec 10 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Dec 17 21:16:24 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/916/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/12/2025 undefined appellate court when it agrees with the view of the trial court on the evidence to repeat the narration of the evidence or to reiterate the reasons given by the trial court expression of general agreement with the reasons given by the Court the decision of which is under appeal, will ordinarily suffice."
12. Thus, in case the appellate court agrees with the reasons and the opinion given by the lower court, then the discussion of evidence at length is not necessary.
13. In the case of Ram Kumar v. State of Haryana, reported in AIR 1995 SC 280, Supreme Court has held as under:
"The powers of the High Court in an appeal from order of acquittal to reassess the evidence and reach its own conclusions under Sections 378 and 379, Cr.P.C. are as extensive as in any appeal against the order of conviction. But as a rule of prudence, it is desirable that the High Court should give proper weight and consideration to the view of the Trial Court with regard to the credibility of the witness, the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused, the right of the accused to the benefit of any doubt and the slowness of appellate Court in Page 9 of 13 Uploaded by M.H. DAVE(HC00193) on Wed Dec 10 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Dec 17 21:16:24 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/916/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/12/2025 undefined justifying a finding of fact arrived at by a Judge who had the advantage of seeing the witness. It is settled law that if the main grounds on which the lower Court has based its order acquitting the accused are reasonable and plausible, and the same cannot entirely and effectively be dislodged or demolished, the High Court should not disturb the order of acquittal."
14. As observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajesh Singh & Others vs. State of Uttar Pradesh reported in (2011) 11 SCC 444 and in the case of Bhaiyamiyan Alias Jardar Khan and Another vs. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in (2011) 6 SCC 394, while dealing with the judgment of acquittal, unless reasoning by the trial Court is found to be perverse, the acquittal cannot be upset. It is further observed that High Court's interference in such appeal in somewhat circumscribed and if the view taken by the trial Court is possible on the evidence, the High Court should stay its hands and not interfere in the matter in the belief that if it had been the trial Court, it might have taken a different view.
15. In the case of Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka, reported in (2007) 4 SCC 415, the Hon'ble Apex Court has Page 10 of 13 Uploaded by M.H. DAVE(HC00193) on Wed Dec 10 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Dec 17 21:16:24 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/916/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/12/2025 undefined observed as under:
"42. From the above decisions, in our considered view, the following general principles regarding powers of the 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 Criminal Procedure Code, 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.
(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 emphasise 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 Page 11 of 13 Uploaded by M.H. DAVE(HC00193) on Wed Dec 10 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Dec 17 21:16:24 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/916/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/12/2025 undefined that in case of acquittal, there is double presumption in favour of the accused. Firstly, the presumption of innocence is 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."
16. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court while considering the scope of appeal under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 no case is made out to interfere with the impugned judgment and order of acquittal.
17. In view of above facts and circumstances of the case, on my careful re-appreciation of the entire evidence, I found that there is no infirmity or irregularity in the findings of fact recorded by learned trial Court and under the circumstances, the learned trial Court has rightly Page 12 of 13 Uploaded by M.H. DAVE(HC00193) on Wed Dec 10 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Dec 17 21:16:24 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/916/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/12/2025 undefined acquitted the respondent/s - accused for the elaborate reasons stated in the impugned judgment and I also endorse the view/finding of the learned trial Court leading to the acquittal.
18. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, the present Criminal Appeal fails to prove its case and the same deserves to be dismissed and is dismissed, accordingly. Record & Proceedings be remitted to the concerned trial Court forthwith.
(SANJEEV J.THAKER,J) M.H. DAVE Page 13 of 13 Uploaded by M.H. DAVE(HC00193) on Wed Dec 10 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Dec 17 21:16:24 IST 2025