Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Lalabhai Punjabhai Chaudhary on 25 July, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1503/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/07/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1503 of 2012
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE S.V. PINTO Sd/-
================================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
√
================================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
LALABHAI PUNJABHAI CHAUDHARY & ORS.
===============================================================
Appearance:
MR PRANAV DHAGAT, APP for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR MANISH J PATEL(2131) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3,4,5,6
================================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE S.V. PINTO
Date : 25/07/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. During pendency of the present criminal appeal, the respondent no. 1 Lalabhai Punjabhai Chaudhari, respondent no. 2 Babubhai Punjabhai Chaudhari and the respondent no.6 Umesh Manubhai Chaudhari have expired. Accordingly, the criminal appeal stands disposed of as abated qua the respondent no. 1 Lalabhai Punjabhai Chaudhari, respondent no. 2 Babubhai Punjabhai Chaudhari and respondent no.6 Umesh Manubhai Chaudhari.
Page 1 of 13 Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Wed Jul 30 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 30 21:54:12 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1503/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/07/2025 undefined
2. 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 dated 26.06.2012 in Criminal Appeal No.231 of 2011 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.8, Ahmedabad City (hereinafter referred to as 'the learned Appellate Court'), whereby, the learned Appellate Court has quashed and set aside the judgment and order 12.05.2011 in Criminal Case No. 2545 of 2003 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Court No.19, Ahmedabad, (hereinafter referred to as 'the learned Trial Court) whereby, the learned Trial Court convicted and sentenced the accused to undergo simple imprisonment of one month and fine of Rs.1000/- and in default, simple imprisonment of 15 days for the offence punishable 143 of the IPC, simple imprisonment of two months and fine of Rs.2000/- and in default, simple imprisonment of one month for the offence punishable 147 of the IPC and simple imprisonment of six months and fine of Rs.1000/- and in default, simple imprisonment of fifteen days for the offence punishable 323 of the IPC. The learned Trial Court was pleased to further order all the sentences to run concurrently.
Page 2 of 13 Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Wed Jul 30 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 30 21:54:12 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1503/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/07/2025 undefined 2.1. The respondents are 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.
3. The relevant facts leading to filing of the present appeal are as under:
3.1. On 14.06.2003, at around 8:30hours, the complainant, Amitbhai Motibhai Choudhury, was at his office named 'Mittal Traders' at Govindwadi in Isanpur and the accused formed an unlawful assembly and came to 'Mittal Traders' and assaulted the complainant and the witnesses. The accused No.5 had a knife with him and witness No.9, Pinkal Motibhai Choudhury, had worn a gold chain in his neck, which fell down and his shirt was torn and a damage of Rs.10,000/- was caused. The complainant, Amitbhai Motibhai Choudhury, filed the complaint at Vatva Police Station under Sections 143, 147, 323, 294(B), 506(2) and 427 of the IPC and Section 135(1) of the B.P.Act.
3.2. 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 Page 3 of 13 Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Wed Jul 30 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 30 21:54:12 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1503/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/07/2025 undefined to the accused as per the provisions of Section 207 of the Code. A charge was framed by the learned Trial Court at Exh.3 and the statements of the accused were recorded at Exh.4 to Exh.9, wherein, the accused denied all the contents of the charge and the entire evidence of the prosecution was taken on record. The prosecution examined 11 witnesses and produced 9 documentary evidences in support of the case.
3.3. After the closing pursis was submitted by the learned APP, the further statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Code was recorded. After hearing the arguments of the learned APP and learned advocate for the accused and perusing the documents on record, the learned Trial Court, by the impugned judgment and order dated 18.01.2010, was pleased to acquit the accused for the offence under Sections 427, 294(B) and 506(2) of the IPC and Section 135(1) of the B.P.Act and convict and sentence the accused to undergo simple imprisonment of one month and fine of Rs.1000/- and in default, simple imprisonment of 15 days for the offence punishable 143 of the IPC, simple imprisonment of two months and fine of Rs.2000/- and in default, simple imprisonment Page 4 of 13 Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Wed Jul 30 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 30 21:54:12 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1503/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/07/2025 undefined of one month for the offence punishable 147 of the IPC and simple imprisonment of six months and fine of Rs.1000/- and in default, simple imprisonment of fifteen days for the offence punishable 323 of the IPC.
3.4. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Trial Court, the appellant - accused preferred Criminal Appeal No.231 of 2011 before the Sessions Court, Ahmedabad, whereby, the appeal preferred by the accused came to be allowed and the learned learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.8, Ahmedabad City quashed and set aside the judgment and order passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Court No.19, Ahmedabad in Criminal Case No. 2545 of 2003 on 12.05.2011.
4. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Appellate Court, the appellant - original complainant has filed the present appeal mainly stating that the impugned judgment and order passed by the Appellate Court is illegal, arbitrary and without properly appreciating the facts of the case and the materials available on Page 5 of 13 Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Wed Jul 30 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 30 21:54:12 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1503/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/07/2025 undefined record. The 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 ought to have appreciated that the learned Trial Court had given proper and cogent reasons and had discussed the evidence in details while convicting the respondents
- accused. The learned Appellate Court has erred in appreciating the fact that the learned Trial Court has, without giving any specific reason, not discussed the evidence of the witnesses in the impugned judgment and order of acquittal and has discarded the evidence of the witnesses, which was fully supported the case of the prosecution. The learned Appellate Court has passed the impugned judgment and order of acquittal, without giving any cogent and convincing reasons, illegal, invalid and improper, and therefore, the same requires to be quashed and set aside.
5. Heard learned APP Mr.Pranav Dhagat for the appellant - State and learned advocate Mr.Manish J. Patel for the respondents. Perused the impugned judgment and order of Page 6 of 13 Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Wed Jul 30 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 30 21:54:12 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1503/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/07/2025 undefined acquittal and have re-appreciated the entire evidence of the prosecution on record of the case.
6. Learned APP Mr.Prahav Dhagat for the appellant - State has taken this Court through the entire evidence produced by the prosecution and has vehemently argued that the learned Trial 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 respondents but the learned Trial Court has not considered the same and has acquitted the respondents. The judgment and order of acquittal passed by the learned Judge is contrary to law, evidence on record and principles of justice. The judgment and order of acquittal passed by learned Judge 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 respondents guilty for the said offence. Learned APP has urged this Court to allow the present appeal and impose maximum sentence on the respondents.
Page 7 of 13 Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Wed Jul 30 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 30 21:54:12 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1503/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/07/2025 undefined
7. Learned advocate Mr.Manish J. Patel for the respondents has submitted that the learned Appellate Court has appreciated all the evidence in true perspective and has not committed any error in acquitting the accused. Therefore, no interference of this Court is required in the impugned judgement and the order of acquittal passed by the learned Appellate Court and has urged this Court to reject the appeal.
8. The entire evidence of the prosecution is appreciated and it is on record that the accused Nos. 1 to 4 are the uncles of the complainant and the other accused are the relatives of the complainant. The complainant has stated that the ancestral property was partitioned between his father and their brothers four years prior to the incident, and at the time of the incident, it was a dispute about a power of attorney regarding the property. The complainant has fully supported the contents of the complaint and during the cross-examination, he has admitted that the accused Nos.1 to 4 are his uncles and the others are his cousins. The property was a joint property and a Partition Deed was Page 8 of 13 Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Wed Jul 30 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 30 21:54:12 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1503/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/07/2025 undefined executed between them and there are litigations pending between the parties.
8.1 PW-2, Rajeshbhai Motibhai Choudhury examined at Exh.8 is the brother of the complainant and he too has supported the contents of the complaint and he has stated that the accused came and asked his father for the power of attorney. His father demanded for the Partition Deed and that is why the accused got angry and started abusing and assaulting them. That he intervened and he too had sustained injuries. The witness has admitted that there was a partition between the parties regarding the properties and they had earlier joint businesses, but he is not sure, about which, properties were partitioned. Pinkal Motibhai Choudhury examined at Exh.9 is the other brother of the complainant, who has similarly narrated the same facts and has admitted regarding the dispute of the properties between the parties.
8.2. Witness Amritgiri Kalugiri Gosai examined at Exh.17 is the panch witness of the place of offence and witness Paresh Chimanlal Vyas examined at Exh.14 is the panch witness of the Page 9 of 13 Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Wed Jul 30 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 30 21:54:12 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1503/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/07/2025 undefined arrest panchnama. Witness Somabhai Poonjabhai Rana examined at Exh.23 has stated that he is known to both the parties, and on the day of the incident, the accused had come and they had an altercation between them. He came to know later on that Pinkal was assaulted by someone and his shirt was torn and he was at his tea stall, which was near the shop of Motibhai Choudhury, the father of the complainant, and he has good relations with them. 8.3. Witness Motibhai Poonjabhai Choudhury examined at Exh.24 is the father of the complainant and he has stated that on 14.06.2003 when he was at his shop the accused Nos. 1 and 2 came and asked for the power of attorney and he demanded for the doc- uments, but they got angry and went outside abusing shouting abuses. The others, who were outside near the gate, assaulted his son, and thereafter, while he was going he too was assaulted. In the cross-examination, the witness has admitted that they had good relations earlier and the lands, factories residential etc. were partitioned and the shops in 'Abhimanyu Complex' were in his possession.
Page 10 of 13 Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Wed Jul 30 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 30 21:54:12 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1503/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/07/2025 undefined
9. On appreciation of the entire evidence of the prosecution, it appears that the incident has occurred in the complex, where the office was situated in Govindwadi, but no independent witnesses have been examined regarding the incident. Moreover, the parties are family members and there are civil disputes regarding the joint properties and prior to this incident, there was no dispute between the parties. In the evidence of Motibhai Punjabhai Choudhury at Exh.24, he has stated that only two accused came and demanded for the power of attorney and when he demanded for the papers of the property, they got angry and left the shop shouting abuses. There is admission on the part of all the parties that there are civil disputes between the parties and the witnesses who have been examined are the complainant and his brothers and his father. The other witness, who is the owner of the tea stall, Somabhai Poonjabhai Rana at Exh.23 has admitted that his tea stall is near the shop of the complainant and he has good relations with the complainant and there is no independent evidence that the incident as narrated by the complainant had taken place. There are major contradictions in the deposition of the complainant and his brothers, the Page 11 of 13 Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Wed Jul 30 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 30 21:54:12 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1503/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/07/2025 undefined eyewitnesses, and there is no iota of evidence that all the accused came together forming an unlawful assembly and had committed the offence. It appears that the accused Nos. 1 and 2 had come to demand for the power of attorney from the father of the complainant, and when he demanded for the documents, they got angry and they went away, and thereafter, the case has been filed. Moreover, the complainant and his brothers have not clearly deposed about the shops in 'Abhimanyu Complex' and it appears that the civil dispute between the parties that the case has been filed due to the civil dispute between the parties.
10. 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 as there was no evidence of all the accused forming an unlawful assembly and being present at the place of offence. 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 Page 12 of 13 Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Wed Jul 30 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 30 21:54:12 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1503/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/07/2025 undefined by the learned Trial Court are absolutely just and proper and no il- legality or infirmity has been committed by the learned Trial Court and this Court is in complete agreement with the findings, ulti- mate 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.
11. The impugned judgment and the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.8, Ahmedabad City in Criminal Appeal No.231 of 2011 on dated 26.06.2012 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) F.S.KAZI.....
Page 13 of 13 Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Wed Jul 30 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 30 21:54:12 IST 2025