Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Rajendrasinh @ Ranjitsinh Son on 20 February, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/934/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/02/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 934 of 2008
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE S.V. PINTO
================================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
NO
==========================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
RAJENDRASINH @ RANJITSINH SON & ORS.
================================================================
Appearance:
MS. JIRGA JHAVERI, APP for the Appellant(s) No. 1
DS AFF.NOT FILED (N) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 5
RULE SERVED for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3,4
================================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE S.V. PINTO
Date : 20/02/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant State under Section 378(1)(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the judgement and order of acquittal passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 2nd Fast Track Judge, Mahesana (hereinafter referred to as "the learned Trial Court") in Special (ATRO) Case No. 44 of 2007 on 27.11.2007, whereby, the learned Trial Court has acquitted the respondents for the offence punishable under Sections 504, 506(2) and 114 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereafter referred to as "IPC" for short) and Section 3(1)(10) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as "Atrocities Act").
Page 1 of 12 Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Thu Feb 20 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Feb 20 22:49:38 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/934/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/02/2025 undefined 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 That on 27th March 2007 at around 07:00 hours in Sanjay Nagar Society, Ucharpi Road, Mahesana, the complainant scolded the accused as they had burnt the hedge, which belonged to the complainant at 05:00 hours and the accused hurled cast abuses on the complainant and threatened to kill him and abused him, and hence the complainant filed the complaint on 27th March 2007 at Mehsana Police Station under Sections 504, 506(2) and 114 of the IPC and Section 3(1)(10) of the Atrocities Act, which was registered at II -C.R.No. 189 of 2007 on 27 th March, 2007.
2.2 The Investigating Officer recorded the statements of the connected witnesses and seized the necessary documents and after completion of investigation, a chargesheet came to be filed before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mahesana and as the said offences against the accused was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the case was committed to the Sessions Court, Mahesana as per the provisions of Page 2 of 12 Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Thu Feb 20 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Feb 20 22:49:38 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/934/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/02/2025 undefined Section 209 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and case was registered Special (ATRO) Case No. 44 of 2007.
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 and a charge at Exh. 2 was framed against the accused and the statements of the accused were recorded at Exh. 3 to 6, wherein, the accused denied all the contents of the charge and the entire evidence of the prosecution was taken on record. 2.4 The prosecution produced the following evidence to bring home the charge against the accused.
ORAL EVIDENCE Sr. P.W. Name of the witnesses Exh.
No. Nos 1. 1. Vimlaben Bhogilal Parmar 8 2. 2. Urmilaben Baldevbhai Parmar 10 3. 3. Maheshbhai Ambaram 11 4. 4. Mayanksinh Ajitsinh Chavda 12 DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE Sr. Particulars Exh. No. 1. Complaint 9 Page 3 of 12 Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Thu Feb 20 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Feb 20 22:49:38 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/934/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/02/2025 undefined 2. Caste certificate of complainant 13 3. Arrest Panchnama 14 4. Panchnama of place of offence 15 5. Order of Depute 16 6. LC of accused 17 & 18 2.5 After the learned Additional Public Prosecutor filed the closing
pursis at Exh. 19, the further statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 were recorded, wherein, the accused denied all the evidence of the prosecution on record. The accused refused to step into the witness box or examine witnesses on their behalf and stated that a false case has been filed against them. 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 judgment and order was pleased to acquit all the accused from all the charges leveled against him.
3. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said judgement and order of acquittal, the appellant - State has filed the present appeal mainly stating that the impugned judgement and order of acquittal passed by the learned Trial Court is contrary to law and evidence on record and the learned Trial Court has not appreciated the fact that all the witnesses Page 4 of 12 Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Thu Feb 20 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Feb 20 22:49:38 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/934/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/02/2025 undefined have supported the case of the prosecution and during cross-examination, nothing adverse has been elicited in favour of the respondents. The case has been proved beyond reasonable doubts and the prosecution has successfully established the case against the respondents and the judgement and order of acquittal is unwarranted, illegal and without any basis in the eyes of 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. Jirga Jhaveri for the appellant State. Though served, none appears on behalf of the respondent(s) either in person or through an advocate. 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. Jirga Jhaveri has taken this Court through the entire evidence of the prosecution on record of the case and has submitted that the prosecution has proved that the complainant was a member of the Scheduled Caste and the accused had earlier burnt the hedge which belonged to the complainant and as the complainant went to scold the accused, they all got together and abused and threatened the complainant and also used caste-slurs against him. The prosecution has Page 5 of 12 Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Thu Feb 20 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Feb 20 22:49:38 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/934/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/02/2025 undefined produced on record the evidence of the family members of the complainant i.e. the wife and daughter of the complainant but the learned trial Court has not appreciated the same and has passed the impugned judgment and order of acquittal, which is contrary to the evidence on record. Learned APP has urged this Court that the impugned judgement and order is improper, perverse and bad in law and is required to be quashed and set aside.
6. At the outset, before discussing the facts of the present case, it would be appropriate to refer to the observations of the Apex Court in the case of Chandrappa & Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka reported in 2007 (4) SCC 415, wherein, the Apex Court has observed as under:
Recently, in Kallu v. State of M.P., (2006) 10 SCC 313 : AIR 2006 SC 831, this Court stated; "While deciding an appeal against acquittal, the power of the Appellate Court is no less than the power exercised while hearing appeals against conviction. In both types of appeals, the power exists to review the entire evidence. However, one significant difference is that an order of acquittal will not be interfered with, by an appellate court, where the judgment of the trial court is based on evidence and the view taken is reasonable and plausible. It will not reverse the decision of the trial court merely because a different view is possible. The appellate court will also bear in mind that there is a presumption of innocence in favour of the accused and the accused is entitled to get the benefit of any doubt. Further if it decides to interfere, it should assign reasons for differing with the decision of the trial court". (emphasis supplied) From the above decisions, in our considered view, the following general principles regarding powers of 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 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 puts no limitation, restriction or condition on exercise of such power and an appellate Page 6 of 12 Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Thu Feb 20 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Feb 20 22:49:38 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/934/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/02/2025 undefined 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 emphasize 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 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.
7. The law with regard to acquittal appeals is well crystallized and in acquittal appeals, there is a 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 Page 7 of 12 Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Thu Feb 20 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Feb 20 22:49:38 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/934/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/02/2025 undefined 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.
8. In light on the above settled principles of law and considering the evidence on the prosecution, to bring home the charge against the accused, the prosecution has examined Prosecution Witness No.1 Bhogilal Bhikhabhai Parmar at Exh. 8 and the witness is the complainant, who has fully supported the facts of the complaint, which is produced at Exh. 9.
During the cross examination of the learned advocate for the accused, the witness has stated that he and the complainant reside in the same society and at the time when the hedge was burnt, he was not at home. That his brother Jivanbhai Bhikhabhai working the Police Department in Mehsana City Police Station. At the time of the incident, Swachchhta Abhiyan was undertaken and his wife Vimlaben had filed the complaint under the Atrocities Act against the accused No.1 and Kishanbhai on 01/01/2006.
8.1 The prosecution has examined Prosecution Witness No. 2 - Rameshchandra Kishorilal Nai at Exh. 10 and Prosecution Witness No. 3
- Ramaji Bachuji Thakore at Exh.13. Both the witnesses are the panch- witness of the panchnama of the place of offence produced at Exh.11 and the arrest panchnama produced at Exh. 12, whereby the accused were Page 8 of 12 Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Thu Feb 20 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Feb 20 22:49:38 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/934/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/02/2025 undefined arrested. Both the witnesses have stated that, on 27/03/2007, while they were in the market, the police had called them and asked them to affix their signatures on the panchnamas produced at Exhs. 11 and 12. That they do not know about the details of the panchnama . Both the witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution and have been declared hostile and during cross examination at length by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor nothing to support the case of the prosecution has come on record.
8.2 The prosecution has examined Prosecution Witness No. 4 - Vimlaben Bhogilal Parmar at Exh. 14 and the witness is the wife of the complainant who has supported the case of the prosecution.
During the cross examination by the learned advocate for the accused, the witness has stated that the accused are residing in the houses just behind their houses and in the same society and they have frequent fight with the accused and she had also come to depose on oath earlier. The complainant was her husband and and she had filed a complaint under the Atrocities Act on 01/01/2006 against the accused No. 1 and Kishan Rambhai Sindhi. That the accused No. 1 had also filed the complaint against her husband and her brother-in-law Jivanlal and the trial of both the cases are pending. That in the case filed by her on 01/01/2006 under the Atrocities Act, the trial was concluded and the Page 9 of 12 Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Thu Feb 20 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Feb 20 22:49:38 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/934/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/02/2025 undefined accused were acquitted from the offences. That, the year 2007 was declared by the Gujarat government as Nirmal Gujarat and all the institution were working towards cleaning the premises of all the offices. 8.3 The prosecution has examined Prosecution Witness No. 5 Priyankaben Bhogilal Parmar at Exh. 15 and the witness is the daughter of the complainant, who has fully supported the case of the prosecution.
During the cross-examination by the learned advocate of the accused, the witness has stated that the accused and they reside in the same society.
8.4 The prosecution has examined Prosecution Witness No. 6 Natvarsinh Dhirubha Zala at Exh.16. This witness has recorded the complaint of the complainant, which is produced at Exh.9. 8.5 The prosecution has examined Prosecution Witness No. 7 Jayantilal Garmanbhai Vachhaniya at Exh.18 and the witness is the Investigating Officer who has investigated the offence and has narrated in detail about the procedure that was done by him during investigation.
During the cross-examination by the learned advocate for the accused, the witness has stated that the hedge was in the open and the complainant had mentioned the names of the witnesses in the complaint.
9. On minute dissection of the entire evidence of the prosecution, the infirmities in the evidence have come on record and there is no iota of Page 10 of 12 Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Thu Feb 20 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Feb 20 22:49:38 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/934/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/02/2025 undefined evidence that the offence has taken place. The prosecution has examined only the wife and daughter of the complainant and the incident has occurred in the residential area but no independent witnesses have been examined. It has emerged on record that disputes were existing between the complainant and the accused and the accused No. 1 has filed the complaint on the complainant and his brother and the wife of the complainant had filed a case under the Atrocities Act against the accused No. 1 and one Kishanbhai and they have been acquitted by the learned trial Court.
Moreover, the incident has occurred on 24/03/2007 but the complaint is filed on 27/03/2007 and there is no explanation regarding the delay in filing the complaint. If the complaint and the deposition of the complainant and the witnesses are perused, the words that are alleged to have been used by the accused are different and it is on record that the accused are residing in a house situated behind the house of the complainant, which is a private place of the complainant. There are no independent witnesses to support the case of the prosecution and as the existing enmity has come on record, the view taken by the learned trial Court is a plausible one.
10. In view of the settled position of law in the decisions of Chandrappa (supra) and Sri Dattatraya (supra), the learned trial Court has Page 11 of 12 Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Thu Feb 20 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Feb 20 22:49:38 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/934/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/02/2025 undefined 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.
11. The impugned judgement and order of acquittal passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 2nd Fast Track Judge, Mahesana in Special (ATRO) Case No. 44 of 2007 on 27.11.2007, is hereby confirmed.
12. Bail bond stands cancelled. Record and proceedings be sent back to the concerned Trial Court forthwith.
Sd/-
(S. V. PINTO,J) VVM Page 12 of 12 Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Thu Feb 20 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Feb 20 22:49:38 IST 2025