Gujarat High Court
Rituben Manharbhai Makwana vs Raginiben W/O Virendrasinh Amethiya on 4 December, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/8/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/12/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL (AGAINST ACQUITTAL) NO. 8 of 2025
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SANJEEV J.THAKER
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
RITUBEN MANHARBHAI MAKWANA
Versus
RAGINIBEN W/O VIRENDRASINH AMETHIYA & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR VAIBHAV A VYAS & MS PRACHI UPADHYAY, ADVOCATES for the
Appellant
MR HB CHAMPAVAT, ADVOCATE for Respondent No. 1
MR YUVRAJ BRAHMBHATT, APP for Respondent No. 2 - State
==========================================================
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 14.11.2024 passed by the learned Special Judge [Scheduled Castes and Scheduled th Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,] and 7 Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural), in Special Atrocity Case No.104 of 2016 for the offences punishable under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code, Section 135(1) of the Bombay Police Act and Section 3(1)R of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, ('the Atrocities Act' for short) the appellant - original complainant has Page 1 of 14 Uploaded by U. SRILATHA(HC00185) on Thu Dec 04 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Dec 04 21:43:56 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/8/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/12/2025 undefined preferred this appeal under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, "the Code").
2. The prosecution case, as unfolded during the trial before the lower Court, is that on 19.09.2016 at about 10:45 a.m., when the complainant - present appellant, who is an advocate, was going to the Court riding on her Activa and when she reached at the Gurukul Tri-junction, she had to stop there as the traffic signal had turned red. When she stopped at that traffic junction, suddenly, the accused came from behind and hit her on her head with a wooden stick. Due to that blow, blood started oozing out of her head. As the public gathered, the accused ran away from the place of incident and the appellant left her vehicle at the place of incident and proceeded to Police Station in auto-rickshaw, where she was sent to the Sola Civil Hospital for treatment. Therefore, a complaint is lodged by her with the Vastrapur Police Station being C.R. No.152 of 2016 for the offences punishable under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code, Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act and Section 3(1)(R) of the Atrocities Act against the 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. Since the Page 2 of 14 Uploaded by U. SRILATHA(HC00185) on Thu Dec 04 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Dec 04 21:43:56 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/8/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/12/2025 undefined offence alleged against the accused person/s was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the learned Magistrate committed the case to the Sessions Court where it came to be registered as Special Atrocity Case No.104 of 2016. 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 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 advocates for the appellant - original complainant have 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 Page 3 of 14 Uploaded by U. SRILATHA(HC00185) on Thu Dec 04 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Dec 04 21:43:56 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/8/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/12/2025 undefined 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.
7.1 As against that, learned advocate for the respondent/s - original accused 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. 7.2 Learned APP for the State supports the case of Page 4 of 14 Uploaded by U. SRILATHA(HC00185) on Thu Dec 04 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Dec 04 21:43:56 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/8/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/12/2025 undefined the prosecution as well as also supports the arguments canvassed by the learned advocate for the appellant - original accused. It is submitted that the learned trial Court has committed an error acquitting the accused. It is submitted that this appeal may be dismissed.
8. In the aforesaid background, considering the oral as well as documentary evidence on record, independently and dispassionately and considering the impugned judgment and order of the trial Court, the following aspects weighed with the Court :
8.1 No independent witnesses are examined by the prosecution. The prosecution has examined P.W.7 - Shivabhai Amarsangbhai Koli Patel vide Exh.40, who has stated that he has not seen the said incident. He has stated in the cross-
examination that he does not have any personal knowledge about the said incident.
8.2 The prosecution has also examined P.W.8 - Sahilbhai Halubhai Desai vide Exh.41, who was not the eye witness to the said incident. He has not supported the case of the prosecution.
8.3 The prosecution has examined P.W. 10 - Page 5 of 14 Uploaded by U. SRILATHA(HC00185) on Thu Dec 04 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Dec 04 21:43:56 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/8/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/12/2025 undefined Shankarbhai Valjibhai Kalal vide Exh.59. He has also not supported the case of the prosecution and has turned hostile. 8.4 The prosecution has examined the panchas of the said incident vide Exhs.22 and 32. The other panchas of the panchnama of seizure of muddammal have been examined vide Ex.38 and they have also not supported the case of the prosecution.
8.5 If the testimony of P.W.9 - Dr.Pravinkumar Shankarbhai Patel, who has been examined vide Exh.9, is seen, it has come on record that there was a minor injury to the complainant.
8.6 The prosecution has also not been able to prove the fact that the accused had made offensive remarks on the caste of the complainant.
8.7 Even in the complaint also, there is no statement that the complainant was abused of the caste. The prosecution has also not proved its case by examining P.W.7
- Shivabhai Amarsangbhai, P.W.8 - Sahilbhai Halubhai Desai and P.W.10 - Shankarbhai Valjibhai Kalal. The alleged assault by the stick has also not been proved by the prosecution.
Page 6 of 14 Uploaded by U. SRILATHA(HC00185) on Thu Dec 04 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Dec 04 21:43:56 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/8/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/12/2025 undefined 8.8 Therefore, the prosecution has not proved the case against the accused for the offence as alleged. 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 an offence under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
8.9 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. The trial Court has gone into the evidence in detail and has come to the conclusion that the accused are not guilty of the alleged offence.
Page 7 of 14 Uploaded by U. SRILATHA(HC00185) on Thu Dec 04 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Dec 04 21:43:56 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/8/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/12/2025 undefined
9. Further, learned advocates for the appellant - original complainant as well as learned APP for the State are 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 14 Uploaded by U. SRILATHA(HC00185) on Thu Dec 04 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Dec 04 21:43:56 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/8/2025 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:
Page 9 of 14 Uploaded by U. SRILATHA(HC00185) on Thu Dec 04 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Dec 04 21:43:56 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/8/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/12/2025 undefined "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 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 Page 10 of 14 Uploaded by U. SRILATHA(HC00185) on Thu Dec 04 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Dec 04 21:43:56 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/8/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/12/2025 undefined 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 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.Page 11 of 14 Uploaded by U. SRILATHA(HC00185) on Thu Dec 04 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Dec 04 21:43:56 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/8/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/12/2025 undefined (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 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 Page 12 of 14 Uploaded by U. SRILATHA(HC00185) on Thu Dec 04 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Dec 04 21:43:56 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/8/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/12/2025 undefined 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 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.
Page 13 of 14 Uploaded by U. SRILATHA(HC00185) on Thu Dec 04 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Dec 04 21:43:56 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/8/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/12/2025 undefined
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 14 of 14 Uploaded by U. SRILATHA(HC00185) on Thu Dec 04 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Dec 04 21:43:56 IST 2025