Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Ramjibhai Vaktabhai Asi on 19 July, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1577/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/07/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1577 of 2011
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D. M. VYAS
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
RAMJIBHAI VAKTABHAI ASI & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS KRINA CALLA, APP for the Appellant(s) No. 1
ABATED for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1
MR YN RAVANI(718) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 2,3,4
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D. M. VYAS
Date : 19/07/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. This is an appeal preferred by the appellant-State of Gujarat under Section 378(1)(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 against the judgment and order dated 05/09/2011 passed by learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc) Ahmedabad (Rural) at Viramgam in Criminal Appeal No.6 of 2011 whereby the appeal of the appellant-State of Gujarat has been dismissed by the appellate court confirming the acquittal judgment dated 16/05/2011 passed by the learned Judicial Page 1 of 12 Uploaded by PATEL ILA KANTIBHAI(HC00194) on Mon Jul 21 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 21 21:55:25 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1577/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/07/2025 undefined Magistrate First Class, Viramgam in Criminal Case No.1226 of 2000 acquitting the respondents-accused for the offences punishable under Sections 224, 225(a) and 177 of the Indian Penal Code.
2. The prosecution case may briefly be stated as follows:
2.1. On 10/01/2000, at about 6:45 hours, the accused persons were given custody of accused Taj Mohmed @ Tajio Allarakha and Rasulbhai Habibbhai from Sabarmati Central Jail, Ahmedabad for producing them before Judicial Magistrate First Class, Morbi in connection with the offence being C.R. No.I-68 of 1999 registered before Tankara Police Station in Government vehicle P-85 bearing registration No.GJ-1-G-2652 and while they were returning from Morbi, as per case of the prosecution, at about 21:30 hours at night, the accused persons were taken at house of sister of Taj Mohmed without handcuff and from that place, accused Taj Mohmed ran away from the custody of the respondents accused. Therefore, accused no.1 Ramjibhai Vaktaji lodged false complaint before Sanand Police Station stating the fact that while they were returning from Morbi and passing through Sanand, at about Page 2 of 12 Uploaded by PATEL ILA KANTIBHAI(HC00194) on Mon Jul 21 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 21 21:55:25 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1577/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/07/2025 undefined 23:10 hours, accused Taj Mohmed @ Tajio Allarakha asked to stop vehicle on the ground of attending nature's call and accordingly they stopped vehicle and accused Taj Mohmed @ Tajio Allarakha and Rasulbhai Habibbhai had gone for attending nature's call and at that time accused Taj Mohmed @ Tajio Allarakha ran away from the custody of the respondents accused and therefore, complaint was filed before Viramgam Town Police Station which was registered as C.R.No.I-82 of 2000 for the offences punishable under Sections 224, 225(a) and 177 of the Indian Penal Code.
2.2. During the investigation, police recorded statements of witnesses, drawn necessary panchnama and as there was sufficient evidence connecting respondents-accused, charge sheet was filed before the court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Viramgam which was numbered as Criminal Case No.1226 of 2000.
2.3. To prove the case against the present respondents-
accused, the prosecution got examined PW-1 to PW-11 witnesses and got marked 12 documentary evidences. Page 3 of 12 Uploaded by PATEL ILA KANTIBHAI(HC00194) on Mon Jul 21 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 21 21:55:25 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1577/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/07/2025 undefined 2.4. At the end of trial, after recording the statement of the accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., and hearing arguments on behalf of prosecution and the defence, the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Viramgam, by his judgment and order of acquittal dated 16/05/2011, acquitted the respondents- accused for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 224, 225(a) and 177 of the Indian Penal Case in Criminal Case No.1226 of 2000.
2.5. Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and order of the learned magistrate court, the State of Gujarat has filed Criminal Appeal No.6 of 2011 before the learned 3 rd Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc), Ahmedabad (Rural) at Viramgam whereby vide judgment and order dated 05/09/2011, the learned 3 rd Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc), Ahmedabad (Rural) has rejected the appeal of the appellant-State and confirmed the judgment of the learned magistrate court of acquitting the respondents accused and hence, aggrieved by the order of the learned appellate court, present appellant-State of Gujarat has filed present appeal challenging the legality and validity of the impugned judgment and order.
Page 4 of 12 Uploaded by PATEL ILA KANTIBHAI(HC00194) on Mon Jul 21 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 21 21:55:25 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1577/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/07/2025 undefined
3. Heard learned APP Ms. Krina Calla for the appellant- State of Gujarat and learned advocate Mr. Y. N. Ravani for respondent nos.2 to 4. As per the order dated 22/03/2022 passed by this Court in Criminal Misc. Application No.1 of 2021 in Criminal Appeal No.1577 of 2011, present appeal stands abated qua respondent no.1.
4. Learned APP for the appellant-State submitted that the appellate court has erred in considering the evidence of the prosecution as well as erred in holding that the prosecution has miserably failed to establish guilt of the accused. She further submitted that the learned appellate court has not properly appreciated the evidence of witness Rasulbhai Habibhai Manek who is examined at Exh.17 which is fully supported the prosecution case and thereby committed grave error in confirming the order of acquittal of the learned magistrate court and lastly prayed to quash and set aside the impugned order of the appellate court.
5. Learned advocate for respondent nos.2 to 4 submitted at length facts of the case and provisions of law and vehemently Page 5 of 12 Uploaded by PATEL ILA KANTIBHAI(HC00194) on Mon Jul 21 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 21 21:55:25 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1577/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/07/2025 undefined argued that the second appeal is not maintainable. He submitted that the prosecution has not obtained sanction to prosecute the respondents-accused under the provisions of Section 197 of the Criminal Procedure Code. He submitted that the prosecution has not complied with the provisions of law and the present appeal is not maintainable under the eye of law. Learned advocate for respondent nos.2 to 4 further submitted that the learned magistrate court has deeply scrutinized the prosecution evidence and recorded reasons and acquitted the accused of the said charges. He submitted that the appellate court re-appreciated the prosecution evidence and confirmed the judgment of learned trial court. He therefore, vehemently argued that the concurrent finding of both the courts is not required to be interfered in this appeal and prayed to dismiss the present appeal.
6. This Court has minutely perused the oral as well as the documentary evidence available on record and gone through the impugned judgment and order of the appellate court as well as the order of the trial court and the paper book in its entirety and has also considered the submissions made by learned APP for the appellant-State and learned advocate for Page 6 of 12 Uploaded by PATEL ILA KANTIBHAI(HC00194) on Mon Jul 21 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 21 21:55:25 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1577/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/07/2025 undefined the respondents.
7. Considering the facts of the subject matter as well as the concurrent finding recorded by the courts below and the provisions of law, no any illegality or perversity is found in the judgments of the trial court and the appellate court and, hence, the same is not required to be interfered.
8. The appellate has miserably failed to prove the charges against the respondents-accused. Not only that the appellant has failed to establish any error of facts or any substantial question of law in both the judgments of the courts below.
9. Under the circumstances, it appears that the learned magistrate court after appreciating the evidence, recorded the finding and thereafter the appellate court also re- appreciated the prosecution evidence and confirmed the judgment of acquittal and hence the same is not required to be interfered.
10. At the outset, it is required to be noted that the principles which would govern and regulate the hearing of Page 7 of 12 Uploaded by PATEL ILA KANTIBHAI(HC00194) on Mon Jul 21 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 21 21:55:25 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1577/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/07/2025 undefined appeal by this Court against an order of acquittal passed by the trial Court, have been very succinctly explained by the Apex Court in a catena of decisions. In the case of M.S. Narayana Menon @ Mani Vs. State of Kerala & Anr., (2006) 6 S.C.C. 39, the Apex Court has narrated the powers of High Court in appeal against the order of acquittal. In Paragraph-54 of the said decision, the Apex Court has observed as under:
"54. In any event the High Court entertained an appeal treating to be an appeal against acquittal, it was in fact exercising the revisional jurisdiction. Even while exercising an appellate power against a judgment of acquittal, the High Court should have borne in mind the well-settled principles of law that where two view are possible, the appellate Court should not interfere with the finding of acquittal recorded by the Court below."
10.1. Further, in the case of Chandrappa Vs. State of Karnataka, (2007) 4 S.C.C. 415, the Apex Court has laid down the following principle;
"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, re- appreciate and reconsider the evidence upon which the Page 8 of 12 Uploaded by PATEL ILA KANTIBHAI(HC00194) on Mon Jul 21 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 21 21:55:25 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1577/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/07/2025 undefined 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 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 curtain extensive powers of an appellate Court in an appeal against acquittal. Such phraseologies are more in the nature of "flourishes of language" to emphasis 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 of acquittal recorded by the trial Court."
10.2. Thus, it is a settled principle that while exercising appellate power, even 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 Page 9 of 12 Uploaded by PATEL ILA KANTIBHAI(HC00194) on Mon Jul 21 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 21 21:55:25 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1577/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/07/2025 undefined the trial Court.
10.3. In the case of State of Goa V. Sanjay Thakran & Anr., (2007) 3 S.C.C. 75, the Apex Court reiterated the powers of the High Court in such cases. In Paragraph-16 of the said decision, the Court observed as under;
"16. From the aforesaid decisions, it is apparent that while exercising the powers in appeal against the order of acquittal the Court of appeal would not ordinarily interfere with the order of acquittal unless the approach of the lower Court is vitiated by some manifest illegality and the conclusion arrived at would not be arrived at by any reasonable person and, therefore, the decision is to be characterized as perverse. Merely because two views are possible, the Court of appeal would not take the view which would upset the judgment delivered by the Court below. However, the appellate Court has a power to review the evidence if it is of the view that the conclusion arrived at by the Court below is perverse and the Court has committed a manifest error of law and ignored the material evidence on record. A duty is cast upon the appellate Court, in such circumstances, to re- appreciate the evidence to arrive to a just decision on the basis of material placed on record to find out whether any of the accused is connected with the commission of the crime he is charged with."
10.4. Similar principle has been laid down by the Apex Court in the cases of State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Ram Veer Singh & Ors, 2007 A.I.R. S.C.W. 5553 and in Girja Prasad (Dead) by LRs Vs. State of MP reported in 2007 A.I.R. Page 10 of 12 Uploaded by PATEL ILA KANTIBHAI(HC00194) on Mon Jul 21 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 21 21:55:25 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1577/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/07/2025 undefined S.C.W. 5589. Thus, the powers, which this Court may exercise against an order of acquittal, are well settled. 10.5. 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 reasonings, when the reasons assigned by the Court below are found to be just and proper. Such principle is laid down by the Apex Court in the case of State of Karnataka Vs. Hemareddy reported in AIR 1981 S.C. 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."
10.6. Thus, in case the appellate Court agrees with the reasons and the opinion given by the lower Court, then the discussion of evidence is not necessary.
11. Considering the aforesaid reasoning and bearing in mind Page 11 of 12 Uploaded by PATEL ILA KANTIBHAI(HC00194) on Mon Jul 21 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 21 21:55:25 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1577/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/07/2025 undefined the statutory provisions as well as the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court, this Court is of the considered opinion that the present appeal does not warrant any interference in the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned appellate court. This Court finds that the findings recorded by the learned magistrate court and the first appellate court are absolutely just and proper and in recording the said findings, no illegality and infirmity has been committed by it. I am therefore, in complete agreement with the findings and ultimate conclusion recorded by the learned appellate court while confirming the judgment of the trial court and there appears no reasons to interfere with the same.
12. The present appeal of the appellant-State of Gujarat is accordingly dismissed. Bail bond, if any, shall stand cancelled.
13. Record and proceedings be sent back forthwith to the concerned court.
(D. M. VYAS, J) ILA Page 12 of 12 Uploaded by PATEL ILA KANTIBHAI(HC00194) on Mon Jul 21 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 21 21:55:25 IST 2025