Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Arjanbhai Ratnabhi Bharwad on 22 July, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/494/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/07/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 494 of 2012
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE S.V. PINTO Sd/-
================================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
√
================================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
ARJANBHAI RATNABHI BHARWAD
================================================================
Appearance:
MR PRANAV DHAGAT, APP for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR DEVANG VYAS(2794) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1
RULE SERVED for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1
================================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE S.V. PINTO
Date : 22/07/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant - State under Section 378(1)(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') against the judgment and the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Surendranagar, Camp at Limbdi (hereinafter referred to as 'the learned Appellate Court') in Criminal Appeal No.9 of 2010 on 27.01.2012, whereby, the learned Appellate Court has quashed and Page 1 of 14 Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Thu Jul 24 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 24 23:09:12 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/494/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/07/2025 undefined set aside the judgment and order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate Class, Muli, (hereinafter referred to as 'the learned Trial Court), in Criminal Case No. 412 of 1999 on 18.01.2010, whereby, the learned Trial Court convicted and sentenced the respondent - original accused no. 1 to rigorous imprisonment of 18 months and fine of Rs.10,000/-, and in default, simple imprisonment of 6 months for the offence punishable under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as 'the IPC'). 1.1. The learned Trial Court was pleased to acquit the accused no. 1 from the offences punishable under Sections 325, 506(2) of the IPC and section 135 of the B.P.Act and to acquit the accused no. 2 from the offences punishable under Sections 324, 325, 506(2) of the IPC and section 135 of the B.P.Act. The learned Trial Court was pleased to convict the respondent herein - accused no. 1 only for the offence punishable under Section 324 of the IPC. 1.2. The respondent herein - accused no. 1 and the accused no. 2 hereinafter referred to as 'the accused' as they stood in the rank and file in the original case, for the sake of convenience, clarity and brevity.
Page 2 of 14 Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Thu Jul 24 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 24 23:09:12 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/494/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/07/2025 undefined
2. The relevant facts leading to filing of the present appeal are as under:
2.1. On 28.08.1999, at around 16:00 hours, the complainant Manjibhai Vajabhai Chuvaliya Koli was in his agricultural field situated in the outskirts of village Nadadri, and at that time, the accused came and assaulted the complainant with their sticks, which had iron rings fixed at the end. Both the accused gave 8 to 10 blows to the complainant on his hands, legs and buttocks. The complainant filed the complaint under sections 324, 325, 506(2) and 114 of the IPC and Section 135 of the B.P.Act, which came to be registered at I-C.R.No. 66 of 1999 with Muli Police Station. The FIR has been filed at Exh.57, and as per the FIR, the complainant and his wife were working in their field, and at around 4:30pm, the accused came with their goats and their goats started grazing in the field of the complainant, Jeetuben Manjibhai, the wife of the complainant, told the accused to restrain their goats from grazing in the fields, but the accused did not do so. The complainant went to the place and the accused no. 1 gave a blow with the stick on his right hand and the other accused also started assaulting the Page 3 of 14 Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Thu Jul 24 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 24 23:09:12 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/494/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/07/2025 undefined complainant with the stick and the complainant fell down. The complainant was given blows on his hands, legs and buttocks and 8 to 10 blows were given to him. His wife intervened and shouted, and at that time, Rupa Dhara, Bhoja Singha and other persons of the Bharwad community came and all of them together assaulted the complainant. The other persons, who were working nearby including Premabhai Ramabai and others came and intervened and saved the complainant from further beatings. Originally, the complaint was filed against 5 persons and after investigation, the charge sheet came to be filed against the two accused only. 2.2. After registration of the FIR, the investigation was carried out by the concerned Investigating Officer and after having sufficient material against the accused, the charge sheet came to be filed against the accused before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Muli.
2.3. The accused was 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. A Page 4 of 14 Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Thu Jul 24 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 24 23:09:12 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/494/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/07/2025 undefined charge was framed by the learned Trial Court at Exh.2 and the statement of the accused was recorded, wherein, the accused denied all the contents of the charge and the entire evidence of the prosecution was taken on record. The prosecution examined 10 witnesses and produced 6 documentary evidences in support of the case.
2.4. After the closing pursis was submitted by the learned APP, the further statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Code was recorded wherein the accused denied the evidence on record. After hearing the arguments of the learned APP and learned advocate for the accused and after perusing the documents on record, the learned Trial Court, by the impugned judgment and order dated 18.01.2010, was pleased to acquit accused no. 2 for the offence under Sections 324, 325 and 506(2) of the IPC and Section 135 of the B.P.Act and the accused no. 1 for the offence under Sections 325 and 506(2) of the IPC and Section 135 of the B.P.Act and convict and sentence only the accused no.1 to simple imprisonment of 18 months and fine of Rs.10,000/-, and in default, simple imprisonment of 6 months and the offence Page 5 of 14 Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Thu Jul 24 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 24 23:09:12 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/494/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/07/2025 undefined punishable under Section 324 of the IPC.
2.5. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Trial Court, the accused no.1 preferred Criminal Appeal No.9 of 2010 before the learned Sessions Court, Surendranagar Camp at Limbdi, whereby, the appeal preferred by the accused came to be allowed and the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Surendranagar, Camp at Limbdi quashed and set aside the judgment and order dated 18.01.2010 in Criminal Case No. 412 of 1999 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate Class, Muli and acquitted the accused from the offence with which he was convicted.
3. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Appellate Court, the appellant - State has filed the present appeal mainly stating that the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Appellate Court is illegal, arbitrary and without properly appreciating the facts of the case and the materials available on record. The learned Appellate Court has erred in appreciating the evidence and without there being cogent and substantial reasons, Page 6 of 14 Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Thu Jul 24 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 24 23:09:12 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/494/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/07/2025 undefined acquitted the accused. The learned Appellate Court has erred in appreciating the oral as well as the documentary evidences produced by the prosecution in its true spirit and straightway arrived at the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubts. The learned Appellate Court has erred in appreciating the fact that from the oral evidence of the witness, though it is established that on the day of incident, the accused has assaulted the complainant and his wife with a stick and caused severe injuries and this fact is corroborated by the oral and documentary evidence on record. The learned Appellate Court has committed an error in discarding the case on minor discrepancies which ought not to have been given much importance, and therefore, the order of acquittal passed by the learned Appellate Court requires to be quashed and set aside.
4. Heard learned APP Mr.Pranav Dhagat for the appellant - State and learned advocate Mr.Devang Vyas for the respondent - accused. Perused the impugned judgment and order of acquittal passed by the Appellate Court as well as judgment and order of conviction passed by the learned Trial Court and have re- Page 7 of 14 Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Thu Jul 24 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 24 23:09:12 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/494/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/07/2025 undefined appreciated the entire evidence of the prosecution on record of the case.
4.1. Learned APP Mr.Pranav Dhagat for the appellant - State has taken this Court through the entire evidence produced by the prosecution and has vehemently argued that the learned Appellate Court has not appreciated the evidence properly and the prosecution has produced cogent evidence to prove the case and has successfully proved the case against the respondent but the Appellate Court has not considered the same and has acquitted the respondent. The judgment and order of acquittal passed by the learned Appellate Court is contrary to law, evidence on record and principles of justice. The judgment and order of acquittal passed by learned Appellate Court is based on inferences, not warranted by facts of the case and also on presumption, not permitted by law. Learned APP has urged this Court to quash and set aside the impugned judgment and order of acquittal and to find the respondent guilty for the said offence. Learned APP has urged this Court to allow the present appeal and impose maximum sentence on the respondent.
Page 8 of 14 Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Thu Jul 24 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 24 23:09:12 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/494/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/07/2025 undefined 4.2. Learned advocate Mr.Devang Vyas for the respondent
- original accused no.1 has submitted that the learned Appellate Court has appreciated all the evidence in true perspective and has not committed any error in acquitting the respondent. Therefore, no interference of this Court is required in the impugned judgment and the order of acquittal passed by the learned Appellate Court and has urged this Court to reject the appeal.
5. To prove the charge against the accused, the complainant has deposed an oath at Exh.56 and has narrated the details of the complaint and has stated that his left hand was fractured and his right leg was also injured and stitches were taken at the Surendranagar Hospital on his right leg. The complainant has identified his thumb impression on the complaint, which is produced at Exh.57. During the cross-examination, the witness has admitted that the place where the incident has occurred was not in his ownership and there is no evidence that the land belongs to him. At that time, there were other workers working in the fields nearby.
5.1 PW-4 Jeetuben Manjibai is the wife of the complainant Page 9 of 14 Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Thu Jul 24 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 24 23:09:12 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/494/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/07/2025 undefined and she has deposed an oath at Exh.58 supporting the case of the complainant.
5.2 PW-5 Premjibai Ramabai examined at Exh.59 is an eye witness as per the case of the prosecution, but he has stated that he does not know anything about the incident and has not supported the case of the prosecution. The witness has been declared hostile and has stated that he has not seen any incident and has not seen the complainant injured.
5.3 PW-7 Bhawanbai Kanjibai Koli, as per the case of the prosecution, was also an eye witness and went to intervene at the time of the incident, but he too has stated that he does not know anything about the incident, but came to know that the persons of the Bharwad community had assaulted Manjibai Vajabai. In the cross-examination, he has admitted that he has not seen the incident and is not an eye witness to the incident. 5.4 PW-8 Dr. Ramaniklal Gordhandabai Thanki was working as a Medical Officer at the General Hospital, Surendranagar and the complainant was brought to him for Page 10 of 14 Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Thu Jul 24 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 24 23:09:12 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/494/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/07/2025 undefined treatment and he has stated that on 24.08.1999 at around 8.50pm, the complainant was brought for treatment with a history of assaulted with the stick by Arjanbhai Ratnabhai Bharwad at 4:00pm. He was admitted as an indoor patient and discharged on 02.09.1999, and on examination, he had a bruise over left shoulder region about 5cmX4cm, tenderness swelling over left forearm, blunt injury over calf muscle over both legs, but no marks of injury were seen, CLW over right lower leg 1cmX¼cmX4cm, bruise over back about 3cmX1.5cm and bruise over scapular region about 6cmX1.5cm. The cause of injury was with a hard and blunt object and except injury no. 2, they were simple injuries and the recovery would be within 6 to 8 weeks. The witness has produced the injury certificate of the complainant at Exh.73. In the cross examination, the witness has admitted that the injured did not state the name of the persons, who had assaulted him and the injuries that were sustained by the complainant could be sustained by a fall.
8. If the entire evidence of the prosecution is re- appreciated, there are major contradictions in the deposition of the complainant and in the complaint, the complainant has named 5 Page 11 of 14 Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Thu Jul 24 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 24 23:09:12 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/494/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/07/2025 undefined persons, whereas, the charge sheet has been filed against 2 persons. As per the complaint, 5 persons had assaulted the complainant with the sticks, which had iron rings at the end, but if the injuries are perused as per the document produced at Exh.73, they were simple injuries and the medical evidence does not corroborate the incident as stated by the complainant. There is no clear evidence as to who has assaulted the complainant and as per the case of the prosecution, PW -5 Premjibhai Ramabhai and PW-7 Bhavanbhai Kanjibhai Koli were independent witnesses, who had gone to intervene while the accused were assaulting the complainant, but they had not supported the case of the prosecution and have stated that they do not know anything about the incident. PW-4 Jeetuben Manjibhai, the wife of the complainant, who has been examined at Exh.58, has supported the case of the prosecution, but her evidence has to be appreciated minutely and it transpires that during the cross examination, she has admitted that she is not an eye witness to the incident. There are exaggerations in the evidence of the complainant and there is no corroboration by any independent witnesses as per the say of the witnesses and there is no evidence that the place, where the Page 12 of 14 Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Thu Jul 24 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 24 23:09:12 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/494/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/07/2025 undefined incident has occurred, belonged to the complainant so that he could restrain the accused from allowing their goats to graze in the field.
9. In view of the above, the learned Appellate 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 Appellate Court has appreciated all the evidence and this Court is of the considered opinion that the learned Appellate Court was completely justified in acquitting the accused of the charges leveled against them. The findings recorded by the learned Appellate Court are absolutely just and proper and no illegality or infirmity has been committed by the learned Appellate Court and this Court is in complete agreement with the findings, ultimate conclusion and the resultant order of acquittal recorded by the learned Appellate Court. This Court finds no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Appellate Court and the present appeal is devoid of merits and resultantly, the same is dismissed.
10. The impugned judgment and the order passed by the Page 13 of 14 Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Thu Jul 24 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 24 23:09:12 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/494/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/07/2025 undefined learned Additional Sessions Judge, Surendranagar, Camp at Limbdi in Criminal Appeal No.9 of 2010 on 27.01.2012 is hereby confirmed.
11. Bail bond stands cancelled. Record and proceedings be sent back to the learned Appellate Court forthwith.
Sd/-
(S. V. PINTO,J) F.S. KAZI Page 14 of 14 Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Thu Jul 24 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 24 23:09:12 IST 2025