Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Vaghari Nareshbhai Chamanbhai on 4 December, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1065/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/12/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1065 of 2010
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SANJEEV J.THAKER
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
VAGHARI NARESHBHAI CHAMANBHAI & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS SHRUTI PATHAK, APP for the Appellant(s) No. 1
HCLS COMMITTEE(4998) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3,4
MR.HARDIK B SHAH(3751) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3,4
UNSERVED EXPIRED (N) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 5
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SANJEEV J.THAKER
Date : 04/12/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Feeling aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment and order of acquittal dated 31.3.2010 passed by the learned Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Patan in Special (Atrocity) Case No.35 of 2008 for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 504, 506(2), 114 and 135 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) 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 U. SRILATHA(HC00185) on Thu Dec 04 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Dec 04 21:43:25 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1065/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/12/2025 undefined
2. The prosecution case as unfolded during the trial before the lower Court is that at about 18.00 hours on 27.2.2008, the complainant went near the S.T.bus stand at Siddhpur, where the accused were fighting and on his asking about why they are fighting, the accused no.1 got excited and started using filthy and abusive language and also hit the complainant with iron pipe on the chest and back and the other accused kicked the complainant and therefore caused injury to him; that the accused also started hurling abusive language about the caste of the complainant and threatened to kill him. Therefore, the complaint was lodged.
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. Since the offence alleged against the accused person/s was exclusively triable by the Special Court, the learned Magistrate committed the case to the concerned Special Court where it came to be registered as Sessions Case (Atrocity) No.35 of 2008. 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 Page 2 of 13 Uploaded by U. SRILATHA(HC00185) on Thu Dec 04 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Dec 04 21:43:25 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1065/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/12/2025 undefined documentary evidence before the trial Court, which are described in the impugned judgment.
5. After hearing both the parties and after analysis 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 Page 3 of 13 Uploaded by U. SRILATHA(HC00185) on Thu Dec 04 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Dec 04 21:43:25 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1065/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/12/2025 undefined 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.
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 It is the case of the complainant that he was assaulted with an iron pipe. The Court has taken into consideration the deposition of P.W.1 - Dr.Rahimbhai Ibrahimbhai Memon - Exh.18 as well as the Injury Certificate issued by him - Exh.19. From the said evidence, this Court finds that the fact of the complainant being Page 4 of 13 Uploaded by U. SRILATHA(HC00185) on Thu Dec 04 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Dec 04 21:43:25 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1065/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/12/2025 undefined assaulted with iron pipe has not been proved. 8.2 The entire case of the complainant is that there was fight between the accused and Jatinji Babuji - P.W.6. The said Jatinji has been examined vide Exh.27. But the fact remains that the said witness has not supported the case of the prosecution and has turned hostile. 8.3 The other eye witnesses are the mother of the complainant viz., Kantaben Javabhai, who has been examined as P.W.7, vide Exh.31 and the aunt of the complainant viz., Nathiben Mangabhai, who has been examined as P.W.9, vide Exh.33. Both the witnesses have stated that they had reached at the place of offence, but from the oral evidence and the testimony of the P.W.6 - Jatinji and P.W.9 - Nathiben, it has come on record that the distance of place of offence and the residence of the complainant is around 10-15 minutes away and therefore, the prosecution has not been able to prove that the said witnesses were present at the time of the alleged offence.
Moreover, if the evidence of P.W.8 - Rameshji Motiji Bhil, who has been examined vide Exh.32, is taken into consideration, he identifies the accused, but from the cross-examination, it has come on record that he is working with the mother of the complainant. Therefore, the evidence Page 5 of 13 Uploaded by U. SRILATHA(HC00185) on Thu Dec 04 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Dec 04 21:43:25 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1065/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/12/2025 undefined of said witness does not inspire confidence.
Moreover, it has come on the record that the said place of offence is a public place, but no independent witnesses have been examined by the prosecution. Even the Investigating Officer, who has been examined as P.W.13 vide Exh.49, has not placed on the record the statement of other shop owners, who were present at the time of the alleged incident.
8.4 The oral evidence of the complainant - Rajeshbhai Javabhai, P.W.11, has been examined vide Exh.37. If the same is taken into consideration as it is, it transpires that there are lot of contradictions and discrepancies in the deposition with respect to the date of incident. The entire case of the complainant is that there was a fight between Jatinji and Naresh, but the prosecution has not been able to prove the said fact.
The Sessions Court has also taken into
consideration the evidence of the Investigating Officer -
Jayantibhai Makwana, ASI, who has been examined as
P.W.13, vide Exh.49, whereby it has also come on the record that the complainant, while making the statement, has not stated that he was assaulted or abused.
8.5 Therefore, the prosecution has not proved the case Page 6 of 13 Uploaded by U. SRILATHA(HC00185) on Thu Dec 04 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Dec 04 21:43:25 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1065/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/12/2025 undefined against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 324, 294(b) and 114 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. Moreover, as per the observations made by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sajan Sakhariya Vs. State of Kerala and others reported in AIR 2024 SC 4557, every insult or intimidation would not amount to an offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, unless such insult or intimidation is started at a victim because he is a member of a particular Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes. Therefore, from the allegations made in the complaint, the prosecution has not proved that the accused is guilty of offence under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. 8.6 The trial Court while considering the evidences in detail has observed that the prosecution has failed to prove the case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. While discussing the evidence in detail, the trial court has found that the only allegation against the accused is of speaking indecent words against the caste of the complainant. However from a perusal of records, it appears that the said utterance does not constitute an offence under the provisions of the Atrocity Act. The trial Court has gone into the evidence in Page 7 of 13 Uploaded by U. SRILATHA(HC00185) on Thu Dec 04 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Dec 04 21:43:25 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1065/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/12/2025 undefined detail and has come to the conclusion that the accused are not guilty of the alleged offence.
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, this Court is of the considered opinion that the 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 Page 8 of 13 Uploaded by U. SRILATHA(HC00185) on Thu Dec 04 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Dec 04 21:43:25 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1065/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/12/2025 undefined 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 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 Page 9 of 13 Uploaded by U. SRILATHA(HC00185) on Thu Dec 04 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Dec 04 21:43:25 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1065/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/12/2025 undefined 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 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 Page 10 of 13 Uploaded by U. SRILATHA(HC00185) on Thu Dec 04 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Dec 04 21:43:25 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1065/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/12/2025 undefined 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 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.Page 11 of 13 Uploaded by U. SRILATHA(HC00185) on Thu Dec 04 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Dec 04 21:43:25 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1065/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/12/2025 undefined (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 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 Page 12 of 13 Uploaded by U. SRILATHA(HC00185) on Thu Dec 04 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Dec 04 21:43:25 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1065/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/12/2025 undefined 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 acquitted the respondents - 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) SRILATHA Page 13 of 13 Uploaded by U. SRILATHA(HC00185) on Thu Dec 04 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Dec 04 21:43:25 IST 2025