Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Ibrahimbhai Karimbhai Belim on 2 July, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/263/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/07/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 263 of 2011
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE S.V. PINTO
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting No
==========================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
IBRAHIMBHAI KARIMBHAI BELIM & 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
MR NEERAJ SONI(3433) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 5
MR. HARDEEP L MAHIDA(7112) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No.
1,2,3,4
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE S.V. PINTO
Date : 02/07/2025
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 Additional Sessions Judge, Vadodara (hereinafter referred to as "the learned Trial Court") in Atro (Special) Case No. 24/2008 on 01.11.2010, whereby, the learned Page 1 of 20 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Thu Jul 03 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 04 01:03:30 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/263/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/07/2025 undefined Trial Court has acquitted the respondents extending benefit of doubt for the offence punishable under Sections 504 and 114 of IPC, Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act and Section 3(1)(10) of Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act" for short).
1.1 The respondents are hereinafter referred to as "the accused" 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 complainant - Jashodaben alias Bhartiben - wife of Sureshbhai Dayabhai Rohit and the accused were neighbours and residing at village Anastu, Taluka Karjan.
On 28.07.2007, at around 09.30 am, the accused were allowing water from the open place of their house to flow into the open space behind the house of the complainant and the complainant told them to restrict the flow of water but all the accused got together and insulted the complainant and abused her and used caste slurs against Page 2 of 20 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Thu Jul 03 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 04 01:03:30 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/263/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/07/2025 undefined her. Later on, when the complainant went to buy vegetables, the accused ran after her and threatened to cut her to pieces and the accused nos. 1 and 2 were armed with swords at the time of the incident. The complainant filed the complaint at the Karjan Police Station under Sections 143, 144, 147, 148, 504 of the IPC, Section 135 of the BP Act and Section 3(1)(10) of the Atrocity Act which was registered at Karjan Police Station I - C.R. No. 47 of 2007. 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, Karjan and as the said offences against the accused were exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the case was committed to the Sessions Court, Vadodara as per the provisions of Section 209 of Code of Criminal Procedure and the case was registered as Atro (Special) Case No. 24/2008.
2.3 The accused were duly served with the summons and the accused appeared before the learned Trial Court and it Page 3 of 20 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Thu Jul 03 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 04 01:03:30 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/263/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/07/2025 undefined 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. 8 was framed against the accused and the statements of the accused was recorded at Exhs. 9, 10, 11 and 12 wherein, the accused denied the contents of the charge and the entire evidence of the prosecution was taken on record.
2.4 The prosecution produced the following evidence to bring home the charge against the accused.
ORAL EVIDENCE
Sr. No. PW Name of the witness Exh.
1 1 Jashodaben Sureshbhai 18
2 2 Dahyabhai Ambalal Rohit 28
3 3 Rabiyaben Sikandarbhai Belim 29
4 4 Suresh Dahyabhai 31
5 5 Vakhatsinh Mavsinh 32
6 6 Mahamadbhai Hasanbhai Belim 35
7 7 Dhavalbhai Ramanbhai Patel 37
8 8 Amit Vitthalbhai 39
9 9 Virjibhai Jivabhai Katara 43
DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE
Sr. No. Particulars Exh.
1 Caste certificate of complainant 19
Page 4 of 20
Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Thu Jul 03 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 04 01:03:30 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/263/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/07/2025
undefined
2 Caste certificate of Sureshbhai 20
3 Complaint 21
4 Ration Card of complainant 22
5 Extract of Station Dairy 33
6 Panchnama of place of offence 36
7 Panchnama 44
8 Notification 45
9 Notification 46
2.5 After the learned APP filed the closing pursis, the
further statements 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. The accused refused to step into the witness box or examine witnesses on their behalf and stated that a false case has been filed against them. After the arguments of the learned APP 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 Page 5 of 20 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Thu Jul 03 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 04 01:03:30 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/263/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/07/2025 undefined 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 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, learned advocate Mr. H.L. Mahida for the respondent nos. 1 to 4 and learned advocate Mr. Neeraj Soni for the respondent no. 5. Perused the impugned judgement and order of acquittal and have reappreciated Page 6 of 20 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Thu Jul 03 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 04 01:03:30 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/263/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/07/2025 undefined the entire evidence of the prosecution on record of the case.
5. Learned APP Mr. Pranav Dhagat and learned advocate Mr. Neeraj Soni for the respondent no. 5 have taken this Court through the entire evidence of the prosecution on record of the case and have submitted that the complainant has fully supported the facts of his complaint. The impugned 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. 5.1 Learned advocate Mr. H.L. Mahida for the respondent nos. 1 to 4 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.
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 regarding the scope of interference in acquittal appeals in the case of Chandrappa Page 7 of 20 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Thu Jul 03 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 04 01:03:30 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/263/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/07/2025 undefined & 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 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 Page 8 of 20 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Thu Jul 03 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 04 01:03:30 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/263/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/07/2025 undefined 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.
(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.
Page 9 of 20 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Thu Jul 03 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 04 01:03:30 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/263/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/07/2025 undefined
7. 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 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.
8. In light of the above settled principle of law, the evidence of the prosecution is dissected and the prosecution has examined PW1 - Jashodaben Sureshbhai at Exh. 18 and the witness is the complainant and she has stated that she belongs to the Scheduled Caste and has produced her caste certificate at Exh. 19. The witness has Page 10 of 20 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Thu Jul 03 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 04 01:03:30 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/263/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/07/2025 undefined also produced the caste certificate of her husband at Exh.
20. The witness has stated that there is a civil litigation pending before the Civil Court, Karjan regarding the open space behind her house with the accused and on 28.02.2007, the incident had occurred at around 09.30 am while she was doing the work of her buffaloes and the dirty water from the house of the accused had come into the place where she had tied her buffaloes. She told the accused no. 1 to restrict the use of water but all the accused came and abused her. That thereafter, she was going to the village to buy vegetables and as she reached near the shop of the accused no. 1, the accused nos. 1 and 2 came armed with swords running towards her and threatened her and abused her. The complaint was filed at the Karjan Police Station which is produced at Exh. 21. During the cross-examination by the learned advocate for the accused, the witness has stated that the dispute about the open space is still pending before the Civil Court at Karjan and her mother-in-law had earlier filed a complaint under the Atrocity Act against the accused which was Page 11 of 20 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Thu Jul 03 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 04 01:03:30 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/263/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/07/2025 undefined rejected. The shop of Jigabhai Rabari is near the shop of the accused no. 1 and the residences of Ganpatbhai, Hiteshbhai Madhavbhai, Shivabhai Trikambhai, Naranbhai Devjibhai are near the shop of the accused no. 1. The complaint was written in the handwriting of her husband and in the complaint she had named Fatimaben also. Fatimaben is residing next to the accused no. 1 and when she had gone to file the complaint, she did not take the court papers with her. She had purchased the disputed property from Rasulbhai Gulambhai and there is a case pending in the Civil Court at Karjan stating that she had illegally encroached on the property.
8.1 The prosecution has examined PW2 - Dahyabhai Ambalal Rohit at Exh. 28 and the witness has stated that on 28.02.2007 the incident had occurred at around 09.30 am. At the time of the incident his daughter-in-law - Joshodaben Sureshbhai - the complainant was alone at home and when she went to buy vegetables, the accused no. 1 and the accused no. 2 ran behind her with swords. That his daughter-in-law came to the field and informed Page 12 of 20 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Thu Jul 03 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 04 01:03:30 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/263/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/07/2025 undefined him about the incident. During the cross-examination by the learned advocate for the accused the witness has stated that earlier a similar kind of a complaint was filed and he and Rabiyaben were witnesses in that case. There are a number of persons residing besides the house of the accused and Salimbhai Karimbhai, Iqbalbhai Karimbhai, Chiragbhai Karimbhai, Shivabhai Trikambhai, Ganpatbhai Dhanjibhai and Narayanbhai Dhanjibhai have their residential houses near the house of the accused no. 1. At the time of the incident he was at his field and is not an eye witness to the incident.
8.2 The prosecution has examined PW3 - Rabiyaben Sikandarbhai Belim and the witness has stated that the incident has occurred at around 09.30 am and the complainant Bhartiben asked the accused no. 1 why he was allowing dirty water to flow in the open space behind her house and at that time the accused hurled caste slurs and abused Bhartiben and after some time Bhartiben was going to buy vegetables and at that time the accused nos. 1 and 2 took swords and ran behind her. During the cross- Page 13 of 20 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Thu Jul 03 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 04 01:03:30 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/263/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/07/2025 undefined examination by the learned advocate for the accused the witness has stated that Heeraben had earlier filed a similar complaint against the accused and she was a witness in that case also. That when the incident had occurred she was in her house and was cooking and at the place of incident are the houses of other persons also. At the time of the incident many persons had gathered and as they were of the village she does not know them. At at the time of the incident she was alone in her house and she heard some sounds and came outside and found a whole crowd of people gathered at that place.
8.3 The prosecution has examined PW4 - Sureshbhai Dayabhai at Exh. 31 and the witness is the husband of the complainant who has supported the case of the prosecution and the contents of the complaint. The witness has stated that on the date of the incident which occurred on 28.02.2007 at around 09.30 am, he had left for his field at around 07.00 am along with his parents and his wife was alone at home and his wife came to the field and told them about the incident. During the cross-examination by the Page 14 of 20 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Thu Jul 03 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 04 01:03:30 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/263/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/07/2025 undefined learned for the accused the witness has stated that his mother had filed a case under the Atrocity Act against the accused and he and Rabiyaben were witnesses in that case. Dayabhai was also a witness and at the time of that incident also his mother was alone at home. That in the case filed by his mother, all the accused were acquitted and they were given a notice for recovery of the amount of compensation paid to them. Sikandarbhai is the husband of Rabiyaben and he has filed a case against the accused and there was a case before the Karjan Court regarding the open space which was decreed in favour of the accused and the case number was Regular Civil Suit No. 56 of 2003. The accused had also filed Regular Civil Suit No. 75 of 2003 and which was decreed in their favour and no appeal is filed in that case.
8.4 The prosecution has examined PW5 - Vakhatsinh Mansinh at Exh. 32 and the witness has stated that he was working as a PSO at Karjan Police Station on 28.02.2007 and the complainant came with a written complaint against six persons and the case was registered under Sections Page 15 of 20 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Thu Jul 03 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 04 01:03:30 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/263/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/07/2025 undefined 143, 144, 147, 148, 504 of the IPC and Section 135 of the BP Act and Section 3(1)(10) Atrocity Act at Karjan Police Station I - C.R. No. 47 of 2007.
8.5 PW6 - Belim Muhammadbhai Hassanbhai examined at Exh. 35 is the panch witness of the panchnama of the place of offence which is produced at Exh. 36 and the witness has fully supported the contents of the panchnama. 8.6 The prosecution has examined PW7 - Dhawal Ramanbhai Patel at Exh. 37 and PW8 - Amitbhai Vithalbhai Patel at Exh. 39. Both the witnesses are the panch witnesses of the arrest panchnama by which the accused were arrested which is produced at Exh. 44. The witnesses have stated that the Karjan Police had called them to the Police Station and had asked them to affix their signature and besides that they do not know any facts about the panchnama. Both the witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution and have been declared hostile and have been cross examined at length but nothing to support the case of the prosecution has come on record. Page 16 of 20 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Thu Jul 03 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 04 01:03:30 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/263/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/07/2025 undefined 8.7 The prosecution has examined PW9 - Veerjibhai Jeevabhai Katara at Exh. 43 and the witness is the Investigating Officer who has narrated in detail the procedure undertaken by him during investigation. During the cross-examination by the learned advocate for the accused, the witness has stated that the complainant had given her caste certificate and the dispute was regarding the water flowing into the open space. There are civil disputes between the parties pending before the Civil Court, Karjan but no documents to that effect were produced before him. That he does not know how many cases under the Atrocity Act were filed by the complainant against the accused.
9. On minute appreciation of the entire evidence of the prosecution the evidence of PW2 - Dahyabhai Ambalal Rahit - father-in-law of the complainant and PW4 - Sureshbhai Dahyabhai - the husband of the complainant are interested witnesses and there is evidence that there are civil disputes pending between the parties. Admittedly, at the time of the incident the complainant was alone at Page 17 of 20 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Thu Jul 03 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 04 01:03:30 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/263/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/07/2025 undefined home and her husband, father-in-law and mother-in-law were in the field and they are not eyewitnesses to the incident. From the evidence that has emerged on record it transpires that the place where the incident occurred is a residential area and there are the residences of many persons and the second incident where the complainant was going into the village to buy vegetables and the accused nos. 1 and 2 ran after her with swords and threatened her, has occurred in the market place where there are the shops and residence of a number of persons but no independent witnesses, either neighbors of the complainant and accused or persons in the market or the shopkeepers have been examined as witnesses before the learned Trial Court. The evidence is also on record that Heeraben - the mother-in- law of the complainant, Jashodaben alias Bhartiben had also filed a case under the Atrocities Act against the accused and at that time also she was alone at home and the learned Trial Court has acquitted the accused in that case also. There is no independent evidence except for the evidence of PW3 - Rabiyaben Sikandarbhai Belim but Page 18 of 20 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Thu Jul 03 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 04 01:03:30 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/263/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/07/2025 undefined during the cross-examination it has emerged that Rabiyaben was also a witness in the earlier case filed by Hiraben under the Atrocities Act against the accused and the accused had filed a case against her husband and she too is an interested witness. There is no evidence about the caste slurs uttered by the accused or the threats and abuses given by the accused to the complainant and all the evidence has been appreciated by the learned Trial Court.
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 Trial Court and this Court is in complete agreement with Page 19 of 20 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Thu Jul 03 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 04 01:03:30 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/263/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/07/2025 undefined 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 the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Vadodara in Atro (Special) Case No. 24/2008 on 01.11.2010, is hereby confirmed.
12. Bail bond stands cancelled. Record and proceedings be sent back to the concerned Trial Court forthwith.
(S. V. PINTO,J) VASIM S. SAIYED Page 20 of 20 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Thu Jul 03 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 04 01:03:30 IST 2025