Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Mukeshbhai Krushnakant Shah on 8 January, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/881/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/01/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 881 of 2008
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE S.V. PINTO
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting No
==========================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
MUKESHBHAI KRUSHNAKANT SHAH & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
Mr. Bhargav Pandya, APP for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR. ALKESH N SHAH(3749) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1
NOTICE UNSERVED for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 2
UNSERVED EXPIRED (R) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 3
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE S.V. PINTO
Date : 08/01/2025
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 Sessions Judge, Vadodara (hereinafter referred to as "the learned Trial Court") in Atrocity Case No.35/2001 on 14.08.2007, whereby, the learned Trial Court has acquitted the respondents for the offence Page 1 of 23 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Tue Jan 21 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jan 31 23:41:58 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/881/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/01/2025 undefined punishable under Sections 323, 325, 504 and 506 (2) of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereafter referred to as "IPC" for short) and Sections 3(1)(x) of Schedule Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereafter referred to as "Atrocity Act" for short).
2. The respondent nos. 1 and 2 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.
During the pendency of the appeal, the respondent no. 3 - original complainant - Bhanuprasad Durgashankar Shrimali has expired.
3. The brief facts that emerge from the record of the case are as under:
3.1 The complainant - Bhanuprasad Durgashankar Shrimali was working in Mechalec Steel Product Company, Gorwa Estate, Shed No. 3/13 as a helper since the year 1981 and on 12.10.2000 at around 08.00 am, when he had gone for his work, the accused no. 2 who was the Manager Page 2 of 23 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Tue Jan 21 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jan 31 23:41:58 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/881/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/01/2025 undefined called him to his cabin and at that time, the accused no. 1 who was the son of the owner of the company and the Chief Executive was sitting in the chair near the accused no. 2.
That they tried to make him write his resignation letter and as the complainant refused to sign the letter, they abused him and used caste slurs on him and the accused no. 1 beat him with kicks and fist and took the duster which had a stick at one end and hit the stick on the right hand of the complainant. The complainant had gone for treatment as he had sustained fracture on the tip of his right index finger and the complaint under Sections 323, 325,504 and 506 (2) of IPC and Sections 3(1)(x) of Schedule Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 was filed which was registered at I-C.R.No. 209 of 2000 with Gorwa Police Station, Vadodara on 12.10.2000. 3.2 The Investigating Officer recorded the statements of the connected witnesses and seized the necessary documents and after completion of investigation the police has filed chargesheet before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vadodara and as the said offences against the accused were Page 3 of 23 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Tue Jan 21 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jan 31 23:41:58 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/881/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/01/2025 undefined exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the case was committed to the Sessions Court, Vadodara as per the provisions of Section 209 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and case was registered as Atrocity Case No. 35/2001. 3.3 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. 17 was framed against the accused and the statement of the accused were recorded at Exhs. 18 and 19, wherein, the accused denied all the contents of the charge and the entire evidence of the prosecution was taken on record.
3.4 The prosecution has produced eight oral evidences and 13 documentary evidences to bring home the charge against the accused and after the learned Additional Public Prosecutor filed the closing pursis at Exh. 86, the further statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 were recorded and after the arguments of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and Page 4 of 23 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Tue Jan 21 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jan 31 23:41:58 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/881/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/01/2025 undefined the learned advocate for the accused were heard, the learned trial Court by the impugned judgment and order was pleased to acquit both the accused from all the charges leveled against him.
4. 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 have supported the case of the prosecution and during cross-examination, nothing adverse has been elicited in favour of the respondent. The case has been proved beyond reasonable doubts and the prosecution has successfully established the case against the respondent 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 Page 5 of 23 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Tue Jan 21 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jan 31 23:41:58 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/881/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/01/2025 undefined judgment and order passed by the learned Trial Court deserves to be quashed and set aside.
5. Heard learned APP Mr. Bhargav Pandya for the appellant State and learned advocate Mr. Alkesh N. Shah for the respondent. Perused the impugned judgement and order of acquittal and have reappreciated the entire evidence of the prosecution on record of the case.
6. Learned APP Mr. Bhargav Pandya has taken this Court through the entire evidence of the prosecution on record of the case and has submitted that the prosecution has proved the case against the accused beyond reasonable doubts and the complainant has fully supported the facts narrated in the complaint which clearly shows that the accused had abused the complainant as they wanted him to resign from the work. That the complainant belonged to scheduled caste and the respondents nos. 1 and 2 have abused and used caste slurs against the complainant. That they have also physically assaulted the complainant and he had sustained fracture injury on his right index finger but Page 6 of 23 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Tue Jan 21 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jan 31 23:41:58 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/881/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/01/2025 undefined the learned Trial Court has relied on presumptions and omissions and has misappreciated the entire evidence. Learned APP has urged this Court to set aside the impugned judgement and order of acquittal and convict the respondent nos. 1 and 2
7. Learned advocate Mr. Alkesh N. Shah for the respondent has submitted that in the entire evidence of the prosecution, there is no iota of evidence that the respondents had used any caste slurs in any public view and in fact, there is evidence on record that the people working in the factory knew the complainant as a person of higher caste. The learned Trial Court has appreciated all the evidence and passed the judgement and order of acquittal which is just and proper and no interference is required in the same and learned Advocate for the respondent has urged this court to reject the appeal of the appellant.
8. At the outset, before discussing the facts of the present case, it would be appropriate to refer to the Page 7 of 23 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Tue Jan 21 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jan 31 23:41:58 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/881/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/01/2025 undefined observations of the Apex Court in the case of Mallappa & Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka passed in Criminal Appeal No.1162 of 2011 on 12.02.2024, wherein, the Apex Court has observed in Para Nos. 24 to 26, as under:
"24. We may firstly discuss the position of law regarding the scope of intervention in a criminal appeal. For, that is the foundation of this challenge. It is the cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence that there is a presumption of innocence in favour of the accused, unless proven guilty. The presumption continues at all stages of the trial and finally culminates into a fact when the case ends in acquittal. The presumption of innocence gets concertized when the case ends in acquittal. It is so because once the Trial Court, on appreciation of the evidence on record, finds that the accused was not guilty, the presumption gets strengthened and a higher threshold is expected to rebut the same in appeal.
25. No doubt, an order of acquittal is open to appeal and there is no quarrel about that. It is also beyond doubt that in the exercise of appellate powers, there is no inhibition on the High Court to re-appreciate or re-visit the evidence on record. However, the power of the High Court to reappreciate the evidence is a qualified power, especially when the order under challenge is of acquittal. The first and foremost question to be asked is whether the Trial Court thoroughly appreciated the evidence on record and Page 8 of 23 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Tue Jan 21 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jan 31 23:41:58 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/881/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/01/2025 undefined gave due consideration to all material pieces of evidence. The second point for consideration is whether the finding of the Trial Court is illegal or affected by an error of law or fact. If not, the third consideration is whether the view taken by the Trial Court is a fairly possible view. A decision of acquittal is not meant to be reversed on a mere difference of opinion. What is required is an illegality or perversity.
26. It may be noted that the possibility of two views in a criminal case is not an extraordinary phenomenon. The 'two-views theory' has been judicially recognized by the Courts and it comes into play when the appreciation of evidence results into two equally plausible views. However, the controversy is to be resolved in favour of the accused. For, the very existence of an equally plausible view in favour of innocence of the accused is in itself a reasonable doubt in the case of the prosecution. Moreover, it reinforces the presumption of innocence. And therefore, when two views are possible, following the one in favour of innocence of the accused is the safest course of action. Furthermore, it is also settled that if the view of the Trial Court, in a case of acquittal, is a plausible view, it is not open for the High Court to convict the accused by reappreciating the evidence. If such a course is permissible, it would make it practically impossible to settle the rights and liabilities in the eyes of law. In Selvaraj v. State of Karnataka, Page 9 of 23 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Tue Jan 21 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jan 31 23:41:58 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/881/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/01/2025 undefined "13. Considering the reasons given by the trial Court and on appraisal of the evidence, in our considered view, the view taken by the trial Court was a possible one. Thus, the High Court should not have interfered with the judgment of acquittal. This Court in Jagan M. Seshadri v. State of T.N. [(2002) 9 SCC 639] has laid down that as the appreciation of evidence made by the trial Court while recording the acquittal is a reasonable view, it is not permissible to interfere in appeal. The duty of the High Court while reversing the acquittal has been dealt with by this Court, thus:
"9. ...We are constrained to observe that the High Court was dealing with an appeal against acquittal. It was required to deal with various grounds on which acquittal had been based and to dispel those grounds. It has not done so. Salutary principles while dealing with appeal against acquittal have been overlooked by the High Court. If the appreciation of evidence by the trial Court did not suffer from any flaw, as indeed none has been pointed out in the impugned judgment, the order of acquittal could not have been set aside. The view taken by the learned trial Court was a reasonable view and even if by any stretch of imagination, it could be said that another view was possible, that was not a ground sound enough to set aside an order of acquittal.""
(emphasis supplied) In Sanjeev v. State of H.P., Page 10 of 23 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Tue Jan 21 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jan 31 23:41:58 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/881/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/01/2025 undefined the Hon'ble Supreme Court analyzed the relevant decisions and summarized the approach of the appellate Court while deciding an appeal from the order of acquittal. It observed thus:-
"7. It is well settled that: -
7.1. While dealing with an appeal against acquittal, the reasons which had weighed with the trial Court in acquitting the accused must be dealt with, in case the appellate Court is of the view that the acquittal rendered by the trial Court deserves to be upturned (see Vijay Mohan Singh v. State of Karnataka5, Anwar Ali v. State of H.P.) 7.2. With an order of acquittal by the trial Court, the normal presumption of innocence in a criminal matter gets reinforced (see Atley v. State of U.P.) 7.3. If two views are possible from the evidence on record, the appellate Court must be extremely slow in interfering with the appeal against acquittal (see Sambasivan v. State of Kerala)."
8.1 In Para - 36, the Apex Court, in the case of Mallappa (Supra), has observed as under:-
"36. Our criminal jurisprudence is essentially based on the promise that no innocent shall be condemned as guilty. All the safeguards and the jurisprudential values of criminal law, are intended to prevent any failure of Page 11 of 23 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Tue Jan 21 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jan 31 23:41:58 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/881/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/01/2025 undefined justice. The principles which come into play while deciding an appeal from acquittal could be summarized as:-
(i) Appreciation of evidence is the core element of a criminal trial and such appreciation must be comprehensive - inclusive of all evidence, oral or documentary;
(ii) Partial or selective appreciation of evidence may result in a miscarriage of justice and is in itself a ground of challenge;
(iii) If the Court, after appreciation of evidence, finds that two views are possible, the one in favour of the accused shall ordinarily be followed;
(iv) If the view of the Trial Court is a legally plausible view, mere possibility of a contrary view shall not justify the reversal of acquittal;
(v) If the appellate Court is inclined to reverse the acquittal in appeal on a re-appreciation of evidence, it must specifically address all the reasons given by the Trial Court for acquittal and must cover all the facts;
(vi) In a case of reversal from acquittal to conviction, the appellate Court must demonstrate an illegality, perversity or error of law or fact in the decision of the Trial Court.
9. The law with regard to acquittal appeals is well crystallized and in acquittal appeals, there is presumption of innocence in favour of the accused and it has finally Page 12 of 23 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Tue Jan 21 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jan 31 23:41:58 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/881/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/01/2025 undefined 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 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.
10. In light on the above settled principles on law considering the evidence on the prosecution, to bring home the charge against the accused, the prosecution has examined eight witnesses and the complainant has stepped into the witness-box and has been examined at Exh. 30. The complainant has narrated the facts as stated in the complaint and he has stated that at the time of the incident, three co-workers namely Ibrahim, Victor and Ambalal were present and in their presence, both the accused had physically and verbally assaulted him. The Page 13 of 23 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Tue Jan 21 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jan 31 23:41:58 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/881/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/01/2025 undefined reason for the assault was that they wanted him to submit a voluntary resignation letter but he refused to sign that letter and he had gone to the Gorwa Police Station and filed the complaint. That he had also taken treatment and a fracture was detected in this right index finger. The complainant has been cross-examined at length by the learned advocate for the accused, wherein, he has stated that he was working for 15 years in the company but had never filed any complaint regarding their behaviour at any point of time. That when he had gone in the chamber of the accused no. 2; Ibrahimbhai, Vitthalbhai, Ambalalbhai and Pannalal were present but he had not named them as witnesses in the complaint. The place where the incident had occurred was the cabin of the manager which is a private place and any words spoken in the cabin could not be heard outside of the cabin where the workers were working. During the cross-examination it has also come on record that proceedings of the complainant were pending before the Labour Court and the documents regarding the litigation before the Labour Court have been produced on Page 14 of 23 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Tue Jan 21 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jan 31 23:41:58 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/881/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/01/2025 undefined record. That earlier the complainant had given an apology letter to the company.
10.1 The prosecution has examined PW2 - Durgashankar Manganlal Shrimali at Exh. 58 and the witness is the father 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 he was not present at the time of the incident and he has not witnessed the incident and has not heard any words that were used by the accused.
10.2 The prosecution has examined PW3 - Mayurbhai Dashratbhai Shah at Exh. 74 and the witness is the panch witness of the panchnama of the place of offence which is produced at Exh. 75. During the cross-examination by the learned advocate for the accused, the witness has stated that there is an automatic door closure on the door of the cabin of the Manager and the rooms are sound proof and no noise from outside can reach into the cabin and similarly, any sound from the cabin cannot be heard outside. That the entire place is a private place and nobody Page 15 of 23 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Tue Jan 21 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jan 31 23:41:58 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/881/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/01/2025 undefined can enter without permission. That during the panchnama, no duster with a stick attached at one end was found. 10.3 The prosecution has examined PW4 - Ramanbhai Ravjibhai Solanki at Exh. 76 and the witness was working as a machine operator in Mechalic Steel Product Company at the time of the incident. The witness has stated that on 12.10.2000, he had gone for work as usual and left the factory after his work at 04.00 pm but he does not know of any incident that had taken place. That on 12.10.2000, the complainant was not seen in the factory and during the cross-examination by the learned advocate for the accused, the witness has stated that besides the attendance card, no person can enter into the factory as there is a compound wall surrounding the factory and there is only one gate for entry into the factory. That on 12.10.2000, the complainant was not seen at the work place and everyone knew the complainant as a person of higher caste in the company. 10.4 The prosecution has examined PW5 - Parsottambhai Harmanbhai at Exh. 78 and the witness was working as a peon in Mechalics Steel Product Company and he has Page 16 of 23 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Tue Jan 21 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jan 31 23:41:58 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/881/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/01/2025 undefined stated that he was working in the company for the past 35 years. That at the time of incident, there were nine workers in the factory and on 12.10.2000, he had come for duty and after doing the cleaning work, at around 07.45 am, he had gone to the gate to mark the attendance of the other workers. That workers Laxmanbhai Poonambhai, Mahendrabhai Bhupatbhai, Makboolbhai, Ramanbhai Babubhai, Ramanbhai K., Ravjibhai, Kesrisinh, Nathabhai Kodarbhai, etc. had come and he had taken their attendance card and allowed them to enter into the factory but the complainant did not come for work on that day. That at 04.30 pm, all the workers took their attendance card from him and no incident had occurred on 12.10.2000 in the factory. During the cross-examination by the learned advocate for the accused, the witness has stated that the complainant had taken his attendance card from the witness on 11.10.2000 at around 04.30 pm and had not come to the factory thereafter.
10.5 The prosecution has examined PW6 - Dr. Uday Hraday Prakash at Exh. 79 and the witness is the Medical Page 17 of 23 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Tue Jan 21 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jan 31 23:41:58 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/881/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/01/2025 undefined Officer who has treated the complainant. The witness has stated that on 12.10.2000, while Dr. G.A. Patel was on duty at hospital, the complainant was brought for treatment with a yadi from Gorwa Police Station and in the history, the complainant had stated that Mukeshbhai Shah had assaulted him with stick at around 08.00 am on 12.10.2000. The complainant had sustained an injury on the index finger of his right hand and there was bleeding near the nail and after the x-ray was taken, it was found that a fracture was sustained on the right index finger. The witness has produced the medical certificate written by Dr. G.A. Patel at Exh. 80. During the cross-examination by the learned advocate for the accused, the witness has stated that the injury was simple and he had not personally examined the complainant. That the injury could be sustained when the hand had forcibly dashed with any hard and blunt object.
10.6 The prosecution has examined PW7 - Dattu Tapiram Mahajan at Exh. 81 and the witness is the PSI, Gorwa Police Station who had recorded the complaint of the Page 18 of 23 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Tue Jan 21 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jan 31 23:41:58 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/881/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/01/2025 undefined complainant which was registered under Section 323, 325, 504 and 506(2) of the IPC and the Sections 3(1)(x) of the Atrocity Act. During the cross-examination, the witness has stated that in the complaint, the complainant had not named any witnesses.
10.7 The prosecution has examined PW8 - Bhimsinh Tulsi Vasava at Exh. 83 and the witness is the Investigating Officer who has narrated in detail all the procedure that was undertaken by him during investigation of the offence. During the cross-examination by the learned advocate for the accused, the witness has stated that in the complaint, there were no eye witnesses mentioned and the place where the alleged incident had occurred was a privately owned place. That during investigation, there was also evidence found that on the date of the incident, the complainant had not come to the factory for work.
11. 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 evidence that on 12.10.2000, the complainant was present at the place of incident except Page 19 of 23 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Tue Jan 21 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jan 31 23:41:58 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/881/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/01/2025 undefined for the bald statement of the complainant that he was present in the factory. The witnesses - co-workers have stated that the complainant was not present and the alleged incident had occurred in the cabin of the accused which is not a public place or a place within public view. There is evidence on record that the cabin has a automatic door closure and any conversation taking place in the cabin cannot be heard outside by the workers and similarly, any noise from outside of the cabin cannot be heard in the cabin as it is sound proof. If the entire evidence of the complainant is perused, there are contradictory evidences regarding the presence of the accused no. 2 at the place of the incident and in the documents produced at Exh. 55 which is the reply to the show cause notice, it is not mentioned by the complainant that the accused no. 2 was present at the time of the incident in his office. As per the complainant, three to four witnesses who were co-workers namely Ibrahimbhai, Victorbhai, Vitthalbhai and Ambalal were present but none of the witnesses who are supposed to be eye witnesses to the incident have been examined by Page 20 of 23 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Tue Jan 21 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jan 31 23:41:58 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/881/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/01/2025 undefined the prosecution. There is also a contradiction about the weapon that is supposed to have been used by the accused no. 1 and the document at Exh. 55 which is the reply to the show cause notice given by the complainant states that revolver was placed on his forehead. Hence, the evidence regarding the weapon used at the time of the incident, is not proved beyond reasonable doubts. As far as the medical evidence is concerned, there is evidence that the injury on the tip of the index finger is possible by other means also and there is also evidence that labour proceedings were going on between the parties.
12. On minute re-appreciation of the entire evidence of the prosecution and the impugned judgment and order, it appears that the learned Trial Court has thoroughly appreciated all the evidence on record and has given due consideration to all the material pieces of evidence. The learned Trial Court has discussed all the oral as well as documentary evidences and if the evidence produced by the prosecution is examined in light of the law laid down by the Constitution Bench in the case of Mallappa (supra), it Page 21 of 23 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Tue Jan 21 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jan 31 23:41:58 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/881/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/01/2025 undefined appears that the learned Trial Court has arrived at findings which are legal and proper and there are no errors of law or facts. Moreover, the view taken by the learned Trial Court in acquitting the accused is fairly possible and there is no illegality and perversity in the impugned judgment and order of acquittal.
13. In view of the settled position of law in the decisions of Mallappa (Supra), the learned trial 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 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 Page 22 of 23 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Tue Jan 21 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jan 31 23:41:58 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/881/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/01/2025 undefined reason to interfere with the impugned judgment and order and the present appeal is devoid of merits and resultantly, the same is dismissed.
14. The impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Vadodara in Atrocity Case No. 35/2001 on 14.08.2007, is hereby confirmed.
15. Bail bond stands cancelled. Record and proceedings be sent back to the concerned Trial Court forthwith.
(S. V. PINTO,J) VASIM S. SAIYED Page 23 of 23 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Tue Jan 21 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jan 31 23:41:58 IST 2025