Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Pratapbhai Genaji Suthar on 25 July, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1301/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/07/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1301 of 2012
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE S.V. PINTO Sd/-
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
No
==========================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
PRATAPBHAI GENAJI SUTHAR & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR. PRANAV DHAGAT, APP for the Appellant(s) No. 1
BAILABLE WARRANT SERVED for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No.
1,2,3,4
DS AFF.NOT FILED (N) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 5
RULE SERVED for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3,4
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE S.V. PINTO
Date : 25/07/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant State under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the judgement and order of acquittal passed by learned 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Vadodara (hereinafter referred to as "the learned Trial Court") in Special (ATRO) Case No. 43 of 2010 on 18.05.2012, whereby, the learned Trial Court has acquitted the respondents for the offence punishable under Sections 323, 504, 506(2) and 114 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and Section 3(1)(10) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities), Page 1 of 13 Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Thu Jul 31 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 31 22:03:36 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1301/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/07/2025 undefined Act, 1889.
1.1 The respondents are hereinafter referred to as the accused as they stood in rank and file 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 As per the complaint, the complainant Kheniben widow of Kanjibai Mayavanshi has stated that she was the owner of house No. E/14 situated at Manokamna Society-2, Opp: Somnath Nagar, Tarsali, Vadodara and on 28-05-2010 at around 14.00 Hrs., while she tried to enter her house, the accused had forcibly taken possession of the house and pushed her out of the house and hurled caste-slurs against her. The complainant filed the complaint under Sections 452, 323, 504, 506 (2) and 114, of the IPC and Section 3 (1)(10) of the Atrocity Act at the Makarpura Police Station, which came to be registered at Makarpura Police Station, I-C.R.No.236 of 2010.
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 Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vadodara and as the said offences against the accused was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the case was Page 2 of 13 Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Thu Jul 31 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 31 22:03:36 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1301/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/07/2025 undefined committed to the Sessions Court, Vadodara as per the provisions of Section 209 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and case was registered Special (ATRO) Case No. 43 of 2010.
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. 3 was framed against the accused and the statements of the accused were recorded at Exhs. 4 to 7, wherein, the accused denied all the contents of the charge and the entire evidence of the prosecution was taken on record. 2.4 The prosecution produced ten oral evidences and seven documentary evidences to bring home charge against the accused and after the learned Additional Public Prosecutor filed the closing pursis at Exh. 35, the further statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 were recorded, wherein, the accused denied all the evidence of the prosecution on record. 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 judgment and order was pleased to acquit all the accused from all the charges leveled against them.
Page 3 of 13 Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Thu Jul 31 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 31 22:03:36 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1301/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/07/2025 undefined
3. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said judgement and order of acquittal, the appellant - State has filed the present appeal mainly stating that the impugned judgement 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 cross-examination, nothing adverse has been elicited in favour of the respondents. The case has been proved beyond reasonable doubts and the prosecution has successfully established the case against the respondents and the judgement and order of acquittal is unwarranted, illegal and without any basis in the eyes of law and the reasons stated while acquitting the respondents 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. Though served the respondents have not appeared either in person or through an advocate. 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 Page 4 of 13 Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Thu Jul 31 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 31 22:03:36 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1301/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/07/2025 undefined that the judgment and order of acquittal is contrary to law and evidence on record and the learned trial Court has not appreciated the direct and indirect evidence in the case. That the complainant has supported the case of the prosecution and the witnesses have identified the accused before the learned trial Court. The prosecution has fully proved the case beyond reasonable doubts but the learned trial Court has relied on minor contradictions and has given undue weightage with regard to the place of incident. That the order passed by the learned trial Court is illegal, improper and perverse and is required to be quashed and set aside and the appeal of the appellant must be allowed.
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 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 v. State of M.P., (2006) 10 SCC 313 : AIR 2006 SC 831, 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 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". (emphasis supplied) Page 5 of 13 Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Thu Jul 31 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 31 22:03:36 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1301/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/07/2025 undefined 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 iTimes New Romann 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.
7. The law with regard to acquittal appeals is well crystallized and in acquittal appeals, there is a 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 Page 6 of 13 Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Thu Jul 31 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 31 22:03:36 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1301/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/07/2025 undefined 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.
8. In light on the above settled principles of law and considering the evidence of the prosecution on record, to bring home the charge against the accused, the prosecution has examined Prosecution Witness No.1 - Kheniben Wd/o Kanjibhai Mayavanshi at Exhibit 13 and it is her say that House No. E/14 situated in Manokamna Society - 2, opposite Somnath Nagar, Tarsali, Vadodara was the house belonging to her husband who was working in the O.N.G.C., Vadodara. Her husband had his earlier wife Kashiben and they had a son Suresh and after they divorced, the complainant married the said Kanjibai. The son - Suresh had sold the house to the accused and a civil case was filed by her against the accused and Suresh and the accused had dispossessed her from the house but during the cross-examination, the complainant has admitted that the house was in the name of her son Suresh and Suresh had sold the house to the accused No. 1. She does not have any residential proof about the house and the house was constructed by Suresh after taking a loan. Moreover, the complainant has also admitted that she had never seen any of the accused besides the accused No. 1 prior to the incident and she was Page 7 of 13 Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Thu Jul 31 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 31 22:03:36 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1301/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/07/2025 undefined residing in a hut at Desai Colony in Tarsali along with all her household articles. The complainant has also admitted that the accused did not know which caste she belongs to. The complainant has produced the complaint at Exhibit 14.
8.1 Prosecution Witness No. 2 - Jayantibhai Jethabhai Parmar examined at Exhibit 16 is the brother of the complainant, but he has not supported the case of the prosecution and has stated that he does not know anything about the incident. The witness has been declared hostile and cross-examined by the learned APP but nothing to support the case of the prosecution has come on record.
8.2 Prosecution Witness No. 3 - Manjulaben Bhagwanbhai examined at Exhibit 17 is the sister of the complainant, but is a hearsay witness and has stated that her sister told her about the incident. 8.3 Prosecution Witness No. 4 - Sureshbhai Kanjibhai Mayavanshi examined at Exhibit 18 is the son of the complainant and he has stated that he is working as an Assistant Grade - I in the O.N.G.C. Vadodara. His father - Kanjibhai was earlier working in the O.N.G.C. and his father had remarried with the complainant - Kheniben. The witness has stated that he had purchased E/14 in Manokamna Society - 2 situated in Tarsali from a builder and had taken an amount of Rs. 50,000/- from his stepmother, Kheniben and had taken a loan for the remaining amount Page 8 of 13 Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Thu Jul 31 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 31 22:03:36 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1301/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/07/2025 undefined and till 2007, they were residing in the house along with his wife and children. In 2007, as he had family problems, he had gone to live on rent in Sachidanand Society and his mother was residing in the house in Manokamna Society. Thereafter, he sold the house to the accused and they had taken the household goods and kept it at their house in Desai Colony in Tarsali.
During the cross-examination by the learned advocate for the accused, the witness has admitted that he had sold the house by a registered sale-deed and an agreement to sale was also executed regarding the property. All the procedure of changing the name in the electricity bill, the electricity meter and other procedure was done and the house was transferred to the name of the accused No. 1 without any dispute. The possession of the house was also given to the accused and the complainant was not happy with the sale and she was filing complaints against the accused and himself at the Makarpura Police Station and the witness has admitted that the complainant has only filed the complaint as she wanted the possession of the house.
8.4 Prosecution Witness No. 5 - Gopiben Maheshbhai Mayavanshi examined at Exhibit 23 is the tenant of the house of the complainant in Tarsali and she has stated that Suresh, the son of the complainant had brought the household goods of the complainant and had Page 9 of 13 Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Thu Jul 31 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 31 22:03:36 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1301/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/07/2025 undefined kept them in the house and thereafter she came to know that the complainant has filed the complaint at Makarpura Police Station but is not an eyewitness to any of the incident.
8.6 Prosecution Witness No. 6 - Vijaykumar Jayantilal Parmar examined at Exhibit 25 is the nephew of the complainant, who is not an eye-witness to the incident but he has stated that his aunty had told him that she had a verbal altercation by someone called Pratapbhai but he does not know Pratapbhai. The witness has stated that his marriage was on 28.05.2010 on the date when the incident had taken place. 8.7 Prosecution Witness No. 7 - Meghrajbhai Nathabhai Harsh examined at Exhibit 26 is the P.S.I., who has recorded the complaint of the complainant and during the cross-examination by the learned advocate for the accused, he has stated that the incident occurred at around 2 p.m. and the complainant had come to file the complaint in the evening but no explanation for the delay in filing of the complaint was stated by the complaint. During the complaint, it had also emerged that the house was sold by Sureshbhai the son of the complainant. 8.8 Prosecution Witness No. 8 - Maheshbhai Dhulabhai examined at Exhibit 28 is the P.S.O., who has registered the complaint at Makarpura Police Station I-.C.R.No. 236 of 2010 and has filed the extract of the Station Diary at Exhibit 29.
Page 10 of 13 Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Thu Jul 31 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 31 22:03:36 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1301/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/07/2025 undefined 8.9 Prosecution Witness No. 9 - Gulabsingh Dashrathsingh Vasava examined at Exhibit 31 and Prosecution Witness No. 10 Balvantsinh Shimuji Rana examined at Exhibit 32 are the Investigating Officers, who have investigated the offence and thereafter filed the charge-sheet.
During the cross-examination by the learned advocate for the accused, they have admitted that at the time of the panchnama no marks were found at the place of incident and they have not recorded the statements of the neighbours of the place where the incident has taken place.
9. On minute appreciation of the entire evidence of the prosecution, it has come on record that House No. E-14 Manokamna Society - 2, situated opposite Somnathnagar in Tarsali, District: Vadodara was the house in the name of Prosecution Witness No. 4 Sureshbhai Kanjibhai Mayavanshi and he had purchased the house by taking a loan as well as taking an amount of Rs.50,000/- from his mother but he had thereafter sold the house to the accused and the accused had taken possession of the house and were residing in the same house but the complainant wanted the possession of the house and she had also filed a civil suit as also complaint before the Makarpura Police Station regarding the same. The complainant has also admitted that the accused did not know her caste Page 11 of 13 Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Thu Jul 31 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 31 22:03:36 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1301/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/07/2025 undefined and there was no reason for them to hurl any caste-slurs against her as they were unaware about her caste and the incident as stated by the complainant has occurred near the house of the accused. Moreover, there is no evidence as to any injury being inflicted upon the complainant and the complainant has not taken any treatment for the same. Admittedly, as per the say of the complainant the incident has occurred near the house, which was a residential area and there were neighbours but no such independent witnesses have been examined before the learned trial Court. There are major contradictions in the depositions of the complainant and her son Prosecution Witness No. 4 Sureshbhai Kanjibhai Mayavanshi and there is no evidence to corroborate the evidence of the complainant on record.
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 Page 12 of 13 Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Thu Jul 31 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 31 22:03:36 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1301/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/07/2025 undefined 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.
11. The impugned judgement and order of acquittal passed by learned 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Vadodara in Special (ATRO) Case No. 43 of 2010 on 18.05.2012, 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) VVM Page 13 of 13 Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Thu Jul 31 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 31 22:03:36 IST 2025