Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Jigneshgiri Devgiri Goswami on 25 July, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1123/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/07/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1123 of 2012
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE S.V. PINTO
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting No
==========================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
JIGNESHGIRI DEVGIRI GOSWAMI & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR. PRANAV DHAGAT, APP for the Appellant(s) No. 1
BAILABLE WARRANT SERVED for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 2
BAILABLE WARRANT UNSERVED for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1
MR DILIP L KANOJIYA(3691) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1,2
UNSERVED EXPIRED (N) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 3
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE S.V. PINTO
Date : 25/07/2025
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 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Rajula (hereinafter referred to as "the learned Trial Court") in Special Case (Atro) No. 7/2011 on 23.04.2012, whereby, the learned Trial Court has acquitted the respondents for the offence punishable under Sections 324, 323, 504, 506(2) and 114 of Page 1 of 15 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Fri Jul 25 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Jul 26 01:05:35 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1123/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/07/2025 undefined Indian Penal Code 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 The accused had earlier eve teased Hansaben - the cousin of the complainant - Balubhai Somatbhai Sankhat and on 10.12.2008 at around 08.00 pm, the complainant met the accused no. 1 at the Ramapir Temple in Balana village of Jaffrabad Taluka of Amreli District and scolded the accused no. 1 as to why he was eve teasing Hansaben - the cousin of the complainant and as the accused no. 1 did not like the scolding, both the accused assaulted the complainant, abused him and dashed him on the ground and took sticks and injured the complainant as also threatened to kill him and hurled caste slurs against the complainant. The complainant filed the complaint at Page 2 of 15 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Fri Jul 25 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Jul 26 01:05:35 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1123/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/07/2025 undefined Jaffrabad Police Station under Sections 323, 324, 504, 506(2) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(1)(10) of the Atrocity Act which came to be registered as Jaffrabad Police Station I - C.R. No. 29 of 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, Rajula and as the said offences against the accused were exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the case was committed to the Sessions Court, Rajula as per the provisions of Section 209 of Code of Criminal Procedure and the case was registered as Special Case (Atro) No. 7/2011.
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. A charge at Exh. 5 was framed against the accused and the statements of the accused were recorded at Page 3 of 15 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Fri Jul 25 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Jul 26 01:05:35 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1123/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/07/2025 undefined Exhs. 6 and 7 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 9 witnesses and produced 16 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 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 Page 4 of 15 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Fri Jul 25 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Jul 26 01:05:35 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1123/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/07/2025 undefined 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 Mr. Pranav Dhagat for the appellant State and learned advocate Mr. Dilip Kanojiya for respondent nos. 1 and 2. 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 Mr. Pranav Dhagat 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 Page 5 of 15 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Fri Jul 25 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Jul 26 01:05:35 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1123/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/07/2025 undefined 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. Learned advocate Mr. Dilip Kanojiya for respondent nos. 1 and 2 has submitted that the learned Trial Court has appreciated the evidence and passed the impugned judgement and order and no interference is required hence, the appeal may be rejected.
7. 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 Page 6 of 15 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Fri Jul 25 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Jul 26 01:05:35 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1123/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/07/2025 undefined 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".
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 Page 7 of 15 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Fri Jul 25 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Jul 26 01:05:35 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1123/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/07/2025 undefined 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.
8. 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 8 of 15 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Fri Jul 25 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Jul 26 01:05:35 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1123/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/07/2025 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.
9. In light of the above settled principle of law, the evidence of the prosecution is dissected and the prosecution has examined PW1 - Balubhai Somabhai at Exh. 18 and the witness is the complainant who has narrated the facts as stated in the complaint which is produced at Exh. 20. During the cross-examination the witness has stated that the incident has occurred near a shop on a public road at around 08.00 pm and it was dark and when he went to the shop to have paan there were many persons sitting there. The accused had later on come Page 9 of 15 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Fri Jul 25 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Jul 26 01:05:35 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1123/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/07/2025 undefined to the paan shop and they had a talk before the incident. That none of the persons who were sitting there intervened and his mother and his uncle came to the spot after about half an hour. He did not inform the doctor at Jaffrabad about any incident and even though his clothes were stained with blood he did not give them to the police. The complainant has stated that it is written in the complaint that the accused had a stick but the accused did not have any stick with them. That he himself had gone to the hospital at Mahuva and taken treatment for two days. 9.1 PW2 - Nathuben Somabhai examined at Exh. 34 is the mother of the complainant but she has not supported the case of the prosecution and she has merely stated that her son had some verbal altercation but she does not know anything about the incident. The witness has been declared hostile and nothing to support the case of the prosecution has come on record during the cross-examination by the learned APP.
9.2 PW3 - Ramjibhai Bachubhai examined at Exh. 36 and PW4 - Varjangbhai Jinabhai examined at Exh. 38 are the Page 10 of 15 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Fri Jul 25 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Jul 26 01:05:35 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1123/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/07/2025 undefined panch witnesses of the panchnama of the place of offence which is produced at Exh. 37. Both the witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution and have been declared hostile.
9.3 PW5 - Jigneshbhai Rameshbhai Vadiya examined at Exh. 39 and PW6 - Akhtarraja Iqbalbhai examined at Exh. 41 are the panch witnesses of the arrest panchnama by which both the accused were arrested and the same is produced at Exh. 40. Both the witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution and have been declared hostile.
9.4 PW7 - Kalabhai Kanabhai examined at Exh. 43 is the uncle of the complainant who as per the case of the complainant had come to intervene and save him but the witness has stated that on 10.12.2008 he was at his house and he heard some sounds and went outside. There were a number of persons gathered there and a quarrel had taken place and his nephew Babu - the complainant was lying on the floor. He was taken to the hospital but he does not know for what reason and with whom the quarrel had Page 11 of 15 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Fri Jul 25 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Jul 26 01:05:35 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1123/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/07/2025 undefined taken place and whether the quarrel was with regard to the eve teasing of Hansaben.
9.5 PW8 - Jagdishbhai Palabhai examined at Exh. 44, as per the case of the prosecution is an eyewitness who was at the paan shop at the time of the incident. The witness has stated that his father owns the paan beedi shop but the witness has not supported the case of the prosecution and he has denied that any such incident has taken place. 9.6 PW9 - Babubhai Ramjibhai Pandore examined at Exh. 56 is the Investigating Officer who has narrated the procedure undertaken by him during investigation.
10. On minute appreciation of the entire evidence of the prosecution, as per the case of the complainant, the incident has occurred on 10.12.2008 at around 08.00 pm. on a public road outside a paan shop but no independent witnesses have been examined to support the case of the prosecution and corroborate the contents of the complaint which is produced at Exh. 20. PW2 - Nathuben Somabhai examined at Exh. 34 and PW7 - Kalabhai Kanabhai examined at Exh. 43 are the mother and the uncle of the Page 12 of 15 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Fri Jul 25 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Jul 26 01:05:35 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1123/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/07/2025 undefined complainant and as per the case of the complainant, they had come and intervened and saved him but both the witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution and have denied that any such incident had taken place and that the incident had taken place because of the eve teasing done by the accused to the cousin of the complainant. PW8 - Jagdishbhai Palabhai examined at Exh. 44, as per the case of the prosecution, was at the spot where the incident has taken place but he too has not supported the case of the prosecution and there is no iota of evidence that the incident has ever taken place. Moreover, the complainant has in the complaint stated that the accused were armed with sticks but during the cross examination has admitted that the accused had come to the shop to have paan later on and they did not have any sticks with them. There is no evidence of any Medical Officer produced on record and there is no iota of evidence that the incident as stated by the complainant has ever taken place. The learned Trial Court has appreciated all the Page 13 of 15 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Fri Jul 25 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Jul 26 01:05:35 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1123/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/07/2025 undefined evidence in detail and has passed the impugned judgment and order of acquittal.
11. 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 Fri Jul 25 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Jul 26 01:05:35 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1123/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/07/2025 undefined
12. The impugned judgement and order of acquittal passed by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Rajula in Special Case (Atro) No. 7/2011 on 23.04.2012, is hereby confirmed.
13. 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 Fri Jul 25 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Jul 26 01:05:35 IST 2025