Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Shardulbhai Ghughabhai on 22 July, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/545/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/07/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 545 of 2013
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE S.V. PINTO
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting No
==========================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
SHARDULBHAI GHUGHABHAI & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS. C.M. SHAH, APP for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR RAJESH K KANANI(2157) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 2,3,4
UNSERVED EXPIRED (R) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE S.V. PINTO
Date : 22/07/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. The appeal is 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 Special Judge, Surendranagar at Limbdi (hereinafter referred to as "the learned Trial Court") in Special (Atrocity) Case No. 5/2012 [(Old) Special Atrocity Case No. 21/2009] on 30.10.2012, whereby, the learned Trial Court has acquitted the respondents extending benefit of doubt for the offence punishable under Section 506(2) of Page 1 of 15 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Thu Jul 24 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 24 23:09:28 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/545/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/07/2025 undefined Indian Penal Code, Sections 183 and 184 of the Gujarat Panchayat Act and Section 3(1)(10) of Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as "the Atrocity Act" for short). 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 On 28.09.2008, at around 12.00 hours in the afternoon, the complainant - Valiben wife Ramjibhai Dayabhai Makwana had gone to her field situated in the outskirts of Thoriyali village on the road from Sayla to Sudamda, near the field of Rayyabhai Gandubhai and at that time, the accused had left their cattle into the standing sesame crop growing in the field of the complainant. The complainant told them to remove the cattle from the field but they abused her and hurled caste slurs and threatened to break her legs. That as she was old and feeble, she came back home and later on, when she went back to the field, Page 2 of 15 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Thu Jul 24 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 24 23:09:28 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/545/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/07/2025 undefined she saw the accused with their cattle in the field. The complainant filed the complaint at the Sayla Police Station under Sections 506(2) of the Indian Penal Code, Sections 183 and 184 of the Gujarat Panchayat Act and Sections 3(1) (10) and 3(1)(5) of the Atrocities Act which was registered at Sayla Police Station II - C.R. No. 3131/2008.
2.2 The Investigating Officer recorded the statements of the connected witnesses and seized the necessary documents and after completion of investigation, a charge- sheet came to be filed before the Court of the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Sayla and as the said offences against the accused were exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the case was committed to the Sessions Court, Surendranagar at Limbdi as per the provisions of Section 209 of Code of Criminal Procedure and the case was registered as Special (Atrocity Case) No. 21/2009 which came to be renumbered as Special (Atrocity) Case No. 5/2012.
2.3 The accused were duly served with the summons and the accused appeared before the learned Trial Court and it Page 3 of 15 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Thu Jul 24 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 24 23:09:28 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/545/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/07/2025 undefined 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. A charge at Exh. 9 was framed against the accused and the statements of the accused were recorded at Exhs. 10, 11, 12 and 13 wherein, the accused denied the contents of the charge and the entire evidence of the prosecution was taken on record.
2.4 The prosecution examined 5 witnesses and produced 14 documentary evidences on record in support of their case and after the learned Additional Public Prosecutor filed the closing pursis, the further statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was recorded and 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 judgement and order was pleased to acquit all the accused from the charges levelled against them.
3. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said judgment and order of acquittal, the appellant - State has filed the present appeal mainly stating that the impugned Page 4 of 15 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Thu Jul 24 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 24 23:09:28 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/545/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/07/2025 undefined judgment 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 the cross-examination, nothing adverse has been elicited in favor of the respondents. The case has been proved beyond reasonable doubt and the prosecution has successfully established the case against the respondents and the judgment and order of acquittal is unwarranted, illegal, and without any basis in the eyes of the 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. C.M. Shah for the appellant State and learned advocate Mr. Rajesh Kanani for the respondents. Perused the impugned judgement and order of acquittal and have reappreciated the entire evidence of the prosecution on record of the case.
Page 5 of 15 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Thu Jul 24 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 24 23:09:28 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/545/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/07/2025 undefined
5. Learned APP Ms. C.M. Shah has taken this Court through the entire evidence of the prosecution on record of the case and submitted that the complainant has fully supported the facts of his complaint. The impugned judgement and order is perverse and learned APP has urged this Court to quash and set aside the same and find the respondent guilty for the offences.
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 regarding the scope of interference in acquittal appeals 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 Vs. State of M.P. (2006) 10 SCC 313, 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 Page 6 of 15 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Thu Jul 24 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 24 23:09:28 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/545/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/07/2025 undefined 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".
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 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. Page 7 of 15 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Thu Jul 24 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 24 23:09:28 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/545/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/07/2025 undefined (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 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 Page 8 of 15 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Thu Jul 24 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 24 23:09:28 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/545/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/07/2025 undefined 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.
8. In light of the above settled principle of law, the evidence of the prosecution is dissected and the prosecution has examined PW1 - Hiteshbhai Mavjibhai Vaghela at Exh. 16 and the witness is the panch witness of the panchnama of the place of offence which is produced at Exh. 17. The witness has supported the case of the prosecution but he has stated that the complainant Valiben Ramjibhai is his grandmother and his grandmother had called him to be a panch witness.
8.1 The prosecution has examined PW2 - Valiben w/o Ramabhai Makwana at Exh. 22 and the witness is the complainant who has narrated the facts as stated in the complaint which is produced at Exh. 23. The witness has produced a caste certificate at Exh. 24. In the cross- examination by the learned advocate for the accused, the witness has admitted that there are civil disputes regarding the land with the accused no. 2, pending before the Court Page 9 of 15 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Thu Jul 24 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 24 23:09:28 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/545/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/07/2025 undefined at Sayla and Regular Civil Suit No. 41 of 2008 has been filed and there is an injunction in favour of the accused and they are restrained from entering into the land. The complainant has also admitted that there are deer and bluebulls roaming around in the outskirts and they enter the fields and damage the crops. Moreover, the witness has also admitted that the field has not been handed over to them by the government after marking the same by metes and bounds and when she went to the Police Station to file the complaint, her husband was with her, and her husband had narrated the fact to the police and accordingly the police had recorded the complaint. In the complaint, she has not stated the extent of damage caused to the sesame crop.
8.2 The prosecution has examined PW3 - Ramjibhai Dayabhai Makwana at Exh. 27 and the witness is the husband of the complainant and is not an eyewitness to the incident. The witness has stated that the incident has occurred on 29.09.2008 and he had gone to Navagam Naika village as there was a death and he returned late in the Page 10 of 15 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Thu Jul 24 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 24 23:09:28 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/545/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/07/2025 undefined evening and his wife told him about the incident. He went to the Police Station but the PSI was not present and he went to the Police Station on the next day. During the cross-examination by the learned advocate for the accused, the witness has stated that he has no documentary evidence to show that the place where the incident has occurred is land in his possession and ownership and he did not give any evidence regarding the land to the police at the time of filing the complaint. There is a dispute between him and the members of the Rabari community as his son was murdered and when he went to the Sayla Police Station, he did not give any complaint in writing at the Police Station. The witness has also admitted that deer and bluebulls enter into the fields and cause damage to the standing crops.
8.3 PW4 - Kamlaben Gordhanbhai Makwana examined at Exh. 28 is the daughter-in-law of the complainant but she too is not an eyewitness to the incident and she has stated that she did not go to the field but came to know about the incident from the complainant.
Page 11 of 15 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Thu Jul 24 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 24 23:09:28 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/545/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/07/2025 undefined 8.4 PW5 - R.J. Pargi examined at Exh. 29 is the Investigating Officer who has narrated in detail the entire procedure undertaken by him during investigation. During the cross-examination by the learned advocate for the accused, the witness has stated that the complaint did not mention the extent of damage that was caused to the standing sesame seeds crop and the details as to when the crop was sown is not mentioned in the panchnama. That no statements of the persons working in the neighbouring fields have been recorded and the statement of the Talati, to show that the land where the incident occurred, belonged to the complainant has not been recorded. That only the husband and the daughter-in-law have been examined as witnesses.
9. On minute appreciation of the entire evidence of the prosecution, there are no eyewitnesses to the incident and besides the deposition of the complainant who has stated that she had gone to the field, there are no other witnesses who have seen the complainant at the place of incident. There are major contradictions regarding the caste slurs Page 12 of 15 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Thu Jul 24 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 24 23:09:28 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/545/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/07/2025 undefined alleged to have been used by the accused in the complaint and the deposition of the complainant and admittedly, the place of offence is a private field and is not a public place. There is no iota of evidence to show that the place of offence i.e. the field, where the alleged incident has taken place, belonged to the complainant and the complainant has admitted that Regular Civil Suit No. 41 of 2008 is pending before the Court of the Principal Civil Judge Sayla and an injunction order restraining the complainant from entering into the field has been passed. As far as the caste certificate of the complainant produced at Exh. 24 is concerned, the caste certificate has been produced on record but no investigation regarding this certificate has been done by the Investigating Officer and it is not proved as to whether the caste certificate was actually of the complainant and that it was issued by the Competent Authority for the complainant. Even otherwise, the place where the alleged incident has occurred is a private place and the incident has not occurred in public view and all the evidence on Page 13 of 15 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Thu Jul 24 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 24 23:09:28 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/545/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/07/2025 undefined record has been properly appreciated in detail by the learned Trial Court.
10. In view of the settled position of law in the decisions of Chandrappa (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 reason to interfere with the impugned judgment and order and the present appeal is devoid of merits and resultantly, the same is dismissed.
Page 14 of 15 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Thu Jul 24 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 24 23:09:28 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/545/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/07/2025 undefined
11. The impugned judgement and order of acquittal passed by the learned Special Judge, Surendranagar at Limbdi in Special (Atrocity) Case No. 5/2012 [(Old) Special Atrocity Case No. 21/2009] on 30.10.2012, 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) VASIM S. SAIYED Page 15 of 15 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Thu Jul 24 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 24 23:09:28 IST 2025