Gujarat High Court
Mathurbhai Maganbhai Patel vs State Of Gujarat on 29 July, 2025
Author: Gita Gopi
Bench: Gita Gopi
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1790/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/07/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1790 of 2009
With
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2518 of 2009
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE GITA GOPI
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
√
==========================================================
MATHURBHAI MAGANBHAI PATEL
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance in Criminal Appeal No.1790 of 2009
GIRISH K PATEL(2770) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR.RAJESH B SONI(2632) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MS MONALI BHATT APP for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1
Appearance in Criminal Appeal No.2518 of 2009
MS MONALI BHATT APP for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR.PT JASANI for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1 - 2, 3 - 6, 7
GIRISH K PATEL(2770) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1 - 6, 7
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE GITA GOPI
Date : 29/07/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
Criminal Appeal No.1790 of 2009
1. The present appeal was filed by the appellant - accused, who was convicted by the Principal Sessions Judge, Mahesana on 25.09.2009 in Special Atrocity Case Page 1 of 16 Uploaded by MR PANKAJ KUMAR PRASAD(HC00967) on Wed Jul 30 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 30 22:52:37 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1790/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/07/2025 undefined No.36/09 under Section 3(1)(xiv) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short "Atrocities Act"). While he and other seven accused were acquitted for the offence punishable under Sections 143, 506(2) read with Section 114 of the IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of the Atrocities Act. The rest of the seven accused were also acquitted under Section 3(1)(xiv) of the Atrocities Act.
2. The sole appellant - Mathurbhai Maganbhai Patel died on 06.03.2022. Learned APP Ms. Monali Bhatt has produced the report of Head Constable, Kadi Police Station, which is supported by death certificate of appellant with the statement of the son of sole appellant - Mathurbhai Maganbhai Patel. Verifying the death on 06.03.2022, the report is ordered to be taken on record.
3. In view of the report and since the sole appellant - Mathurbhai Maganbhai Patel died on 06.03.2022, the Criminal Appeal No.1790 of 2009 stands disposed of as abated.
Page 2 of 16 Uploaded by MR PANKAJ KUMAR PRASAD(HC00967) on Wed Jul 30 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 30 22:52:37 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1790/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/07/2025 undefined Criminal Appeal No.2518 of 2009
1. The present appeal is filed by the State under Section 378(1)(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, (for short 'Cr.P.C.') against the judgment and order dated 25.09.2009 passed in Special Atrocity Case No.36/09 by the Principal Sessions Judge, Mahesana qua the original accused Nos.2 to 8 for the offence under Sections 143, 506(2) and 114 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 3(1)(x) and 3(1)
(xiv) of the Atrocities Act.
1.1 The learned Sessions Judge convicted the accused No.1 - Mathurbhai Maganbhai Patel, who is now deceased, finding him guilty for the offence under Section 3(1)(xiv) of the Atrocities Act.
2. Learned APP Ms. Monali Bhatt has produced on record the report of Head Constable, Kadi Police Station and according to the report, accused No.2 - Patel Bachubhai Harjivandas died on 27.03.2018, accused No.3 - Patel Kantilal Manilal died on 06.06.2023 and accused No.4 - Patel Dahyabhai Tribhovandas died on 28.10.2020. The Page 3 of 16 Uploaded by MR PANKAJ KUMAR PRASAD(HC00967) on Wed Jul 30 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 30 22:52:37 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1790/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/07/2025 undefined death certificates of all the three accused, who are respondent Nos.1 to 3 in the present matter, are produced on record with the report supported by statement of the concerned persons. The report as well as death certificates with the statements are ordered to be taken on record. 2.1 In view of the report, the present appeal against respondent Nos.1 to 3 stands abated. Hence, the appeal would be now concerning respondent Nos.4 to 7, who were accused Nos.5 to 8 of the Special Atrocity Case No.36/09.
3. The facts of the case, as had been presented before the trial Court suggest that the complainant - Bharatkumar Manilal Parmar resident of Kherpur, Taluka - Kadi, District Mahesana, who is doing agriculture work, on 11.02.2009 at about 8 O' clock in the morning along with fifteen other persons were going for Darshan of Ramji, Hanumanji at goddess Verai temple. At that time, respondents - accused were standing there, who abused them and threatened to kill them. To avoid the altercation, the complainant and others returned back home. A complaint was filed on Page 4 of 16 Uploaded by MR PANKAJ KUMAR PRASAD(HC00967) on Wed Jul 30 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 30 22:52:37 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1790/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/07/2025 undefined 14.02.2009 at Kadi Police Station as C.R. No.I-30/2009, where eight accused were proceeded for the offence under Sections 143, 506(2) read with Section 114 of IPC and Section 3(1)(x) and Section 3(1)(xiv) of the Atrocities Act.
4. Learned APP Ms. Monali Bhatt submitted that in order to bring home the charges against the accused, the prosecution had examined as many as ten witnesses. The evidence of complainant - Bharatkumar Manilal Parmar (P.W.1) and Parmar Jivanbhai Karshanbhai (PW2) are corroborating with the evidence of other witnesses; in spite of that, learned Sessions Judge failed to appreciate this fact and had acquitted rest of the accused only convicting accused No.1.
4.1 Learned APP Ms. Bhatt submitted that the learned Sessions Judge has failed to appreciate that at the date, time and place of incident, the accused abused the complainant by his caste and by beating him and threatening others, had committed the offence under IPC and Atrocities Act. The learned Judge has failed to Page 5 of 16 Uploaded by MR PANKAJ KUMAR PRASAD(HC00967) on Wed Jul 30 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 30 22:52:37 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1790/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/07/2025 undefined appreciate the evidence of the witnesses, which are corroborating in nature.
4.2 Learned APP Ms. Bhatt further stated that the complainant belongs to scheduled caste community and the utterance of the accused were to insult him in a public place and in public view and the abusive words have lower down the dignity of the complainant and the witnesses. The accused by forming an unlawful assembly had threatened the complainant and other witnesses, in prosecution for their common object of not allowing the members of schedule caste to enter the temple. Ms. Bhatt submitted that there were ample evidence on record in the form of oral and documentary to support the prosecution case and though there was abusive utterance by the accused, in spite of that, the case under Section 3(1)(x) of the Atrocities Act has not been believed, which is a grave error. 4.3 Learned APP Ms. Bhatt submitted that Jivanbhai Karshanbhai (PW2) has supported the prosecution case still the learned Judge has disbelieved him. Ms. Bhatt stated Page 6 of 16 Uploaded by MR PANKAJ KUMAR PRASAD(HC00967) on Wed Jul 30 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 30 22:52:37 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1790/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/07/2025 undefined that in the same way, Natvarbhai Tribhovanbhai Parmar (PW3), Kanjibhai Ramabhai Parmar (PW4), Valjibhai Ranchhodbhai Parmar (PW7), Jagatsinh Takhubha Rana (PW8), Pradipkumar Bhogilal (PW9) and Firozkhan Sharifkhan Pathan (PW10), though have supported the prosecution case, the learned Judge has committed grave error in disbelieving and discarding the evidence of the witnesses.
5. Having heard learned APP Ms. Bhatt, perused the impugned judgment. The learned Trial Court Judge first had appreciated the evidence in context of Section 143 IPC to verify the evidence of formation of unlawful assembly. The learned Trial Court Judge has disbelieved the evidence of any unlawful assembly under Section 141 of the IPC having any common object to prosecutes an offence. The learned Judge has observed that the offence, as noted under Section 141 IPC, has not been proved. There is no criminal force exerted for prosecution of the alleged common object, nor there was any further continuance of the assembly proved to consider it as an unlawful, and the learned Judge has Page 7 of 16 Uploaded by MR PANKAJ KUMAR PRASAD(HC00967) on Wed Jul 30 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 30 22:52:37 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1790/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/07/2025 undefined also noted that there was no knowledge shared by the persons alleged for the prosecution of any common object. 5.1 The allegation is that the deceased accused No.1 - Mathurbhai Maganbhai Patel by the casteist remarks against the complainant had restrained him from entering the temple.
5.2 The learned Judge has not found other accused Nos.2 to 8 uttering such abusive words against the complainant. Except accused No.1 - Mathurbhai Maganbhai Patel, none were found to have restricted the complainant to enter the temple.
5.3 The learned Judge has also found contradiction in the evidence of the witnesses of the allegation of intimidating the complainant by his life. Such intimidation had no corroboration from the other witnesses. The learned Trial Court Judge has observed that the complainant in his deposition at Exh.12 has specifically stated that Patel Mathurbhai Maganbhai of their village had abused him by his caste and had restrained him from entering the temple Page 8 of 16 Uploaded by MR PANKAJ KUMAR PRASAD(HC00967) on Wed Jul 30 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 30 22:52:37 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1790/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/07/2025 undefined and he had given threat of causing grievous hurt by breaking down his hands and legs and also threat of death was given. Though, such evidence was given in the deposition, but such fact has not been recorded in the complaint Exh.13.
5.4 The Police Officer - Jagatsinh Takhubha Rana at Exh.22 had recorded the complaint and stated that such kind of facts have not been recorded in the complaint. Thus, the police officer at Exh.22 has categorically stated that no such fact of giving threat or intimidation was recorded in the complaint.
5.5 The witness - Jivanbhai Karshanbhai at Exh.14 stated that the deceased accused - Mathurbhai Maganbhai had abused them by their caste and asked complainant and other witnesses not to visit the temple and the allegation was that all the accused got excited. Apart from that no other evidence has been given by the witness about alleged threat to life, and that becomes clear from the evidence. Rather the witness - Natvarbhai Parmar at Exh.15 only Page 9 of 16 Uploaded by MR PANKAJ KUMAR PRASAD(HC00967) on Wed Jul 30 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 30 22:52:37 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1790/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/07/2025 undefined alleges about accused - Mathurbhai Maganbhai asking the complainant not to enter for worship in the temple and had also stated of the threat to life as well as committing grievous hurt. The learned Trial Court Judge was of an opinion that merely by relying on the evidence of single witness, all the accused cannot be made liable. The assessment of the evidence should be on the basis of all the evidence on the overall appreciation. 5.6 The learned Trial Court Judge has further observed that Kanjibhai Ramabhai Parmar at Exh.16 had not stated of any such threat to life and even Valjibhai Ranchhodbhai Parmar had not supported the evidence of threat to life to the complainant. The learned Judge has observed that there is contradiction in the evidence of the witnesses and therefore, the learned Judge did not believe the case of threat to life to the complainant and the witnesses, since the learned Judge had come to the conclusion that there was contradictory evidence, hence, the case under Section 506(2) of the IPC was not disbelieved.
Page 10 of 16 Uploaded by MR PANKAJ KUMAR PRASAD(HC00967) on Wed Jul 30 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 30 22:52:37 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1790/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/07/2025 undefined
6. This Court on perusal of the evidence on record is of the similar view that when the evidence are contradictory in nature of the witnesses, who claim themselves to be the eyewitnesses to the incident and if those witnesses do not corroborate the evidence of the complainant and if the witnesses are more than one, then the prosecution is required to bring consistency in the evidence of all the witnesses. Merely, one of the witness supporting the complainant would not bring the case to be considered as proved beyond reasonable doubt, when the evidence of the complainant itself becomes partly doubtful. 6.1 Further allegation is under Section 3(1)(x) of the Atrocities Act, whereas the case is of lowering down the dignity of the complainant by making casteist remark. This allegation is against deceased accused - Mathurbhai Maganbhai, whose appeal has been abated because of his death. The learned Judge has not found such fact of accused lowering down the dignity of the complainant - Bharatkumar Manilal Parmar considering him as a member of S.C.- S.T. community. The learned Judge has found that Page 11 of 16 Uploaded by MR PANKAJ KUMAR PRASAD(HC00967) on Wed Jul 30 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 30 22:52:37 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1790/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/07/2025 undefined there was no such intention of deceased accused - Mathurbhai Maganbhai.
7. This Court has not entered into the details of the facts against accused - Mathurbhai Maganbhai, since the appeal of the accused - Mathurbhai Maganbhai stood abated because of his death, but on those evidence on record, the fact becomes appreciable that there is no such allegation against other co-accused of abusing the complainant - Bharatkumar Manilal Parmar by his caste. There is no allegation that other co-accused have lower down the dignity by making any casteist remarks, hence, the learned Judge has not found any case under Section 3(1)(x) of the Atrocities Act. Section 3(1)(x) of the Atrocities Act reads as under:
"3(1)(x) Intentionally insults or intimidates with intent to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe in any place within public view."
7.1 Likewise, on perusal of the evidence of the witnesses, this Court has also not found any such evidence stated by the witnesses of any abusive words uttered by rest of the Page 12 of 16 Uploaded by MR PANKAJ KUMAR PRASAD(HC00967) on Wed Jul 30 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 30 22:52:37 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1790/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/07/2025 undefined accused.
7.2 Section 3(1)(xiv) of the Atrocities Act reads as under:
"3(1)(xiv) denies a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe any customary right of passage to a place of public resort or obstructs such member so as to prevent him from using or having access to a place of public resort to which other members of public or any section thereof have a right to use or access to."
8. The case of the prosecution is that accused - Mathurbhai Maganbhai restrained the complainant and the witnesses to enter goddess Verai temple, while the evidence are of contradictory in nature. The specific allegation is against accused - Mathurbhai Maganbhai, and Mathurbhai Maganbhai was found guilty under Section 3(1)(xiv) against which he filed an appeal before this Court, which stood abated. There is no allegation against rest of the accused to have restrained the complainant and other witnesses to enter the temple. There is no satisfactory evidence of the witnesses to suggest that rest of the accused Nos.2 to 8 had restrained the complainant to pay his respect in the goddess Verai temple. The learned Judge has rightly observed the same.
Page 13 of 16 Uploaded by MR PANKAJ KUMAR PRASAD(HC00967) on Wed Jul 30 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 30 22:52:37 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1790/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/07/2025 undefined
9. In the case of Darshan Singh Vs. State of Punjab [2024 (3) SCC 164], the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:
"61. In a case of acquittal, if the trial court's view is a possible or plausible view, then the Appellate Court or the High Court would not be justified in interfering with it. It is the settled legal position that there is presumption of innocence and that presumption is further fortified with the acquittal of the accused by the trial court. The Appellate Court or the High Court would not be justified in reversing the judgment of acquittal unless it comes to a clear conclusion that the judgment of the trial court is utterly perverse and, on the basis of the evidence on record, no other view is plausible or possible than the one taken by the Appellate Court or the High Court."
9.1 In the case of Kallu Vs. State of M.P., [(2006) 10 SCC 313], the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:
"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 Page 14 of 16 Uploaded by MR PANKAJ KUMAR PRASAD(HC00967) on Wed Jul 30 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 30 22:52:37 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1790/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/07/2025 undefined should assign reasons for differing with the decision of the trial court."
9.2 The judgment of Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka (2007) 4 SCC 415, would be relevant to be mentioned since the judgment lays down the general principles for the consideration of the acquittal appeals. The Supreme Court has held thus:
The following general principles regarding powers of the 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 15 of 16 Uploaded by MR PANKAJ KUMAR PRASAD(HC00967) on Wed Jul 30 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 30 22:52:37 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1790/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/07/2025 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 is 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 and one favourable to the accused has been taken by the trial court, it ought not to be disturbed by the appellate court.
10. In view of the observations and reasons given above, this Court does not find any case for setting aside the acquittal of the respondents. In the result, the appeal fails and stands dismissed. Record & Proceedings be sent back to the concerned trial Court forthwith.
(GITA GOPI,J) Pankaj/27 Page 16 of 16 Uploaded by MR PANKAJ KUMAR PRASAD(HC00967) on Wed Jul 30 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 30 22:52:37 IST 2025