Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Anil @ Mala Vashrambhai Ukani (Patel) on 9 July, 2025
Author: Umesh A. Trivedi
Bench: Umesh A. Trivedi
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1870/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/07/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH Court OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1870 of 2010
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH A. TRIVEDI Sd/-
======================================
Approved for Reporting No Yes
No
======================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
ANIL @ MALA VASHRAMBHAI UKANI (PATEL) & ANR.
======================================
Appearance:
MR. SOAHAM M. JOSHI, APP for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR HD CHUDASAMA(234) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1
RULE SERVED for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 2
======================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH A. TRIVEDI
Date : 09/07/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. This appeal filed under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "the Code") by the State of Gujarat challenging the judgment and order of acquittal recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, 8 th Fast Track Court, Gondal Camp at Upleta, District: Rajkot dated 04.08.2010 rendered in Sessions Case No. 5 of 2009, whereby Page 1 of 21 Uploaded by Raj Subhash Dhobi(HC01779) on Tue Jul 15 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 15 21:31:31 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1870/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/07/2025 undefined respondent - accused came to be acquitted of the charge punishable under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as "IPC") as also under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act")
2. As per the case of the prosecution, first-informant - Kamlaben Valjibhai Rathod, on 07.09.2008 at about 9:00 p.m. proceeding towards the hospital of a private Doctor through Ramji Mandir, as she was suffering from Chikungunya, for the purpose of getting medicine from the Doctor, respondent - accused met her near Ramji Mandir and he abused her on her caste and gave a slap on her face because of which there was bleeding from her teeth. At that time, witness - Nathubhai Punjabhai of village Bholgamda had intervened to save her. However, respondent - accused also gave him kick and fist blow. Therefore, witness - Nathubhai Punjabhai went away and she also went to her home. She told about the incident to her husband when he came back at 11:00 p.m. and since it was too late, they went to sleep. However, on the next day, they went to Government Cottage hospital, Upleta for the purpose of treatment from where she was referred to Junagadh hospital for further treatment.
Page 2 of 21 Uploaded by Raj Subhash Dhobi(HC01779) on Tue Jul 15 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 15 21:31:31 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1870/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/07/2025 undefined 2.1 Even witness - Nathubhai Punjabhai was also treated at Upleta Government hospital and he was also referred to Junagadh Government hospital for the purpose of further treatment.
2.2 At the hospital chowki, Junagadh, first-informant gave her complaint and PSO 'B' Division Police station, Junagadh entrusted investigation into it to PSI. PSI went to the hospital and recorded the statement of first-informant - Kamlaben, who was admitted to the hospital for the purpose of treatment. Thus, he gave report to the Police station and based on such report, an entry in the station diary was made in Upleta Police station, which came to be registered at Upleta Police station for the offences punishable under Section 323 of the "IPC" as also under Section 3(1)(x) of "the Act". 2.3 Pursuant thereto, Deputy Superintendent of Police, SC/ST Cell, Rajkot Rural, took over the investigation and he recorded statement of witnesses at village Chikhaliya, drawn the panchnama at the place of offence and when he came back to the Police station, the accused was present. Therefore, he carried out physical condition of the accused panchnama in the presence of two panchas, and thereafter, arrest was effected upon him. Thereafter, he went to Junagadh and Page 3 of 21 Uploaded by Raj Subhash Dhobi(HC01779) on Tue Jul 15 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 15 21:31:31 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1870/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/07/2025 undefined recorded additional statements of the first-informant as also witness - Nathubhai Punjabhai.
2.4 On conclusion of investigation, he submitted charge-sheet in the Court of learned Magistrate, Upleta. Since the offence alleged against the accused is exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions/Special Court, on ensuring compliance of the provisions of Sections 207 and 209 of "the Code", case was committed to the Sessions Court for the purpose of trial. 2.5 On charge being framed against the accused for the aforesaid offence, he pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed to be tried. Therefore, to prove the case against the accused, prosecution had examined 15 witnesses and produced and proved nearly 20 documents.
2.6 On recording of the evidence concluded, further statement of the accused under Section 313 of "the Code" was recorded.
2.7 Thereafter, on hearing the learned APP as also the advocate for the accused, learned Judge passed the aforesaid judgment and order of acquittal in favour of the accused.
3. This Court heard arguments of Mr. Soaham M. Joshi, learned APP for appellant - State, as also Mr. H.D. Chudasama, Page 4 of 21 Uploaded by Raj Subhash Dhobi(HC01779) on Tue Jul 15 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 15 21:31:31 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1870/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/07/2025 undefined learned advocate for the respondent - accused on 07.07.2025. Thereafter case was posted for dictation of judgment on 08.07.2025. However, it could not be dictated, it has been kept today. Though today, Mr. Soaham M. Joshi, learned APP is not available, since he has conducted the matter, his name is shown in the title as also referred to in this judgment.
4. Heard Mr. Soaham M. Joshi, learned APP for appellant - State. He took me to the evidence adduced before the Court as also the reasoning assigned by the learned Judge for recording an order of acquittal. He submitted that deposition of the first-informant is corroborated by the injury sustained as deposed to before the Court. For the injuries over the first-informant, two Doctors, one at Junagadh and another at Upleta, came to be examined vide PW-6 - Dr. Kamuben Dahyalal Sagathiya and Dr. Hiteshbhai Laljibhai Kalaria, respectively.
4.1 As per the deposition and certificate issued by the first Doctor, PW-7 - Dr. Hiteshbhai Laljibhai Kalaria, injured Kamlaben gave history of slap being given to her. She complained of pain on the face. Because of the injury, her front tooth was bleeding and moving. Doctor gave her primary Page 5 of 21 Uploaded by Raj Subhash Dhobi(HC01779) on Tue Jul 15 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 15 21:31:31 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1870/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/07/2025 undefined treatment and referred her for the further treatment and opinion of Dentist at Government hospital, Junagadh. Therefore, he has submitted that the story put forward by the first-informant about accused slapping her so tightly that her tooth was bleeding, which required treatment, which she took at Upleta Government hospital as also Junagadh Government hospital. Her deposition is also corroborated by the deposition of the Doctor, who treated her.
4.2 Similarly, the injury sustained by first-informant - Kamlaben is further corroborated by deposition of PW-6 - Dr. Kamuben Dahyalal Sagathiya of Junagadh Government hospital. As per her certificate dated 08.09.2008, she was treated as indoor patient and discharged on 10.09.2008, having admitted on 08.09.2008. The injury certificate issued by PW-6 - Dr. Kamuben Dahyalal Sagathiya is produced at Exhibit-
21. Thus, according to the submission of learned APP, the injury sustained by first-informant is further corroborated by both the Doctors.
4.3 He has further submitted that not only the injury sustained by her caused by the accused is corroborated by medical evidence, commission of an offence as deposed to before the Court that insult to her caste within public view, is Page 6 of 21 Uploaded by Raj Subhash Dhobi(HC01779) on Tue Jul 15 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 15 21:31:31 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1870/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/07/2025 undefined also proved. She has also confirmed the presence of witness - Nathubhai Punjabhai, who intervened and rescued her. Therefore, it is submitted that even the person, who helped her is also assaulted, he is also injured and his injuries were also corroborated by evidence of Doctors with necessary certificates. Though first-informant was declared hostile at the instance of learned APP and permitted to cross-examine her, she has admitted that she has stated before the Police in the complaint that accused met her on her way and he abused and insulted her about her caste within public view. 4.4 Not only that, as per the submission of Learned APP, such assertion of the first-informant is also corroborated by injured eyewitness - Nathubhai Punjabhai, who is examined as PW-2, Exhibit-15. So far as an offence under Sections 323 of the "IPC" and 3(1)(x) of "the Act" are concerned, though panch witnesses have not supported the case of prosecution, fact remains that the Police Officer, who has drawn the panchnama at the scene of offence, stated about the same and it can be proved through the evidence of Police Officer, who has drawn the panchnama.
4.5 He has further submitted that the deposition of first- informant is further corroborated by her husband, who is not Page 7 of 21 Uploaded by Raj Subhash Dhobi(HC01779) on Tue Jul 15 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 15 21:31:31 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1870/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/07/2025 undefined an eyewitness, but he was informed by his wife immediately after the incident within no time.
4.6 He has further submitted that PW-9 - Mansukhbhai Najabhai Solanki, though declared hostile in his examination- in-chief states that he knows accused as also the first- informant as they are his neighbours. Though he pleaded ignorance about any quarrel between the accused and the first-informant but he states that accused slapped him. He has also stated about the reason for slapping him in his examination-in-chief.
4.7 PW-10 - Muljibhai Khimabhai Solanki, though also did not support the case of prosecution. He has further submitted that so far as caste of the victim is not in dispute. PW-11 - Nainaben Pankajbhai Patadiya, Taluka Development Officer, Taluka Panchayat, Upleta, is examined to prove caste certificate having been countersigned by her based on the documents produced. He has further submitted that during the cross-examination of the said witness, she has admitted that Exhibit-28 produced by her cannot be said to be document of her caste. Be that as it may, since there is no serious dispute about the caste of the first-informant, no other witness in that respect is examined.
Page 8 of 21 Uploaded by Raj Subhash Dhobi(HC01779) on Tue Jul 15 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 15 21:31:31 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1870/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/07/2025 undefined 4.8 He has further submitted that other Police Officers, who have been examined as witnesses, have stated about the investigation as also recording of First Information Report, drawing of various panchnamas and obtaining medical injury certificates from the hospitals in corroboration of the prosecution case, and therefore, learned APP submitted that since offence alleged against the accused is proved not only for the offence under the "IPC' but also for an offence under "the Act", the appeal is required to be allowed and respondent
- accused is required to be suitably convicted and punished for the said offences.
5. As against that, Mr. H.D. Chudasama, learned advocate for the respondent - accused, vehemently submitted that as such the incident has not occurred in the manner deposed to before the Court and for the offences alleged in the First Information Report.
5.1 He has further submitted that though the incident occurred at late night on 07.09.2008 when first-informant was going to the private hospital for the purpose of treatment of Chikungunya, after the incident also she could have straight gone to that very Doctor, who is the nearest in terms of Page 9 of 21 Uploaded by Raj Subhash Dhobi(HC01779) on Tue Jul 15 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 15 21:31:31 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1870/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/07/2025 undefined distance as also proximate in time, she went home and on the next day, without police yaadi, she went to the Cottage hospital, Upleta at 10:15 a.m. in the morning. No prompt complaint came to be filed by the first-informant, if at all such a serious offence of insult about her caste within public view is committed by the accused.
5.2 He has further submitted that even PW-2 - Nathubhai Punjabhai, who also claims to be injured while he was intervening in the quarrel of first-informant and the accused, also did not file any complaint. But surprisingly, on the next day, i.e on 08.09.2008, he also went to the Cottage hospital, Upleta at the same time when first-informant - Kamlaben entered the hospital. Therefore, he has submitted that not filing the complaint promptly creates doubt about the genuineness of the incident and of the depositions given by the first-informant and injured eyewitness. Even at Upleta also, according to submission of Mr. H.D. Chudasama, learned advocate for the respondent - accused, complaint could have been filed but it was not done at that point of time. 5.3 He has further submitted that when depositions of two injured eyewitness are also inconsistent, and therefore, prosecution story is not believable at all. Though there was no Page 10 of 21 Uploaded by Raj Subhash Dhobi(HC01779) on Tue Jul 15 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 15 21:31:31 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1870/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/07/2025 undefined such serious injuries found, if at all committed by the accused, on any of the injured, both have been referred to the higher centre for the purpose of treatment and they have been admitted as indoor patient for two days without any cause. 5.4 Therefore, he has submitted that entering the Cottage hospital, Upleta, at the same time, by both the injured, though they are not related and even admitting them in Junagadh Government hospital as indoor patient together, and discharged on the very same date and time, creates doubt about the genuineness of the First Information Report as alleged in the deposition given by Nathubhai Punjabhai as the injured eyewitness.
5.5 He has relied on decisions of the Supreme Court in the case of Chandrappa and others v. State of Karnataka, reported in (2007) 4 SCC 415 and in the case of Babu Sahebagouda Rudragoudar and others v. State of Karnataka, reported in AIR 2024 SC 2252 for the scope of interference by the High Court in an appeal against the order of acquittal, more particularly, para 42 and paras 39 to 42 respectively, from both the decisions, laying much stress on the evidence adduced and the clear-cut admission by the first- informant, he has submitted that since an order of acquittal is Page 11 of 21 Uploaded by Raj Subhash Dhobi(HC01779) on Tue Jul 15 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 15 21:31:31 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1870/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/07/2025 undefined not patently perverse, if at all case of the prosecution is to be believed, this Court, while exercising appellate powers against an order of acquittal, may not interfere with the well-reasoned decision recorded by the learned Judge.
5.6 He has vehemently submitted that, in an acquittal appeal, presumption of innocence of the accused is strengthened by the order of acquittal recorded by the learned Sessions Judge on appreciation of evidence, and even if two views are possible on the set of evidence produced by the prosecution, the view which is favourable to the accused is to be accepted, drawing attention of the Court to the clear admission by the first-informant in the last line of her cross- examination, it is admitted that a false case is foisted upon the accused.
5.7 Drawing attention of the Court to her cross- examination, more particularly the last line thereof at page 33 of the paper-book, where first-informant admitted that, 'since accused had asked her not to sell liquor just beside Ramji Mandir, a false complaint is filed against the accused', no other view is possible than the view taken by the learned Judge, and therefore, this appeal is required to be dismissed. Page 12 of 21 Uploaded by Raj Subhash Dhobi(HC01779) on Tue Jul 15 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 15 21:31:31 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1870/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/07/2025 undefined
6. Having heard the learned APP as also Mr. H.D. Chudasama, learned advocate for the respondent - accused and going through the impugned judgment and order as also depositions of witnesses and the documents produced and proved, let me examine whether a case is made out to interfere in this acquittal appeal, as submitted by the learned APP or not.
6.1 Considering the deposition of first-informant - victim, Kamlaben - PW-1 at Exhibit-12, though it is asserted that it is corroborated by medical evidence and the deposition of the Doctors, it doesn't inspire confidence, as despite offence having occurred at 8:00 - 8:30 p.m. while she was going to the private Doctor for the treatment of Chikungunya, if any assault is made, which requires treatment, she would have immediately gone to the very Doctor, who is nearest, because she was to reach that hospital in no time; however, she did not go to the Doctor and instead, went home.
Surprisingly, on the next day, she straight went to the Cottage hospital, Upleta instead of going to the Police station for filing complaint. Though she may be entitled to do that, she reached Cottage hospital, Upleta at 10:15 a.m. and Page 13 of 21 Uploaded by Raj Subhash Dhobi(HC01779) on Tue Jul 15 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 15 21:31:31 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1870/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/07/2025 undefined gave history of she being slapped, without naming even the accused on the next day morning at about 10:15 a.m. 6.2 Further surprisingly, another injured eyewitness, who claims to be not knowing Kamlaben by name or by any other reason, only by face, he knew her as he intervened when accused was assaulting her, in an attempt to save her even he received injury at the hands of accused as alleged by him in his deposition. The said witness, though of a different village, coincidentally reached the Cottage hospital, Upleta at the very same time when the first-informant - Kamlaben reached there. Though it may not be that much serious, but very fact that without naming the accused though he is knowing him, he gave history to Dr. Hiteshbhai Laljibhai Kalaria at Cottage hospital, Upleta that, he was beaten with shoes, having tenderness over face area and redness of left eye sclera in a certificate Exhibit-26 issued by him to the witness - Nathubhai Punjabhai 6.3 Most surprisingly, both were referred to higher center at Government Hospital, Junagadh for the purpose of further treatment together. However, as appearing from the certificate Exhibit-21, issued by Dr. Kamuben Dahyalal Sagathiya at Junagadh Government Hospital, first-informant Page 14 of 21 Uploaded by Raj Subhash Dhobi(HC01779) on Tue Jul 15 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 15 21:31:31 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1870/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/07/2025 undefined has named the accused, that too, as 'Malo Patel'. Though injury certificate Exhibit-21 issued by Dr. Kamuben Dahyalal Sagathiya at Junagadh Government Hospital refers about the injury to the tooth, for the likely cause of injury, expert opinion of Dental Surgeon was necessary, as certified by her, still however, prosecution has failed to produce any opinion by any Dental Surgeon, if at all obtained, as suggested by Dr. Kamuben Dahyalal Sagathiya. Still however, for such so called injury to the tooth, she was kept as indoor patient for two days. Again surprisingly, injured eyewitness - Nathubhai Punjabhai, though he had also not named accused when he was treated at Cottage hospital, Upleta before Doctor at Junagadh, as in the history before Dr. Kamuben Dahyalal Sagathiya, he had stated that, "yesterday i.e. on 07.09.2008 at about 9:30 p.m., Mala Patel has given pipe blow".
6.4 If evidence of injured eyewitness - Nathubhai Punjabhai is seen, nowhere he has referred the accused being known as even 'Mala Patel'. Though he claims that he hails from village Bholgamda, he had come to Chikhaliya for the purpose of getting medicine from the Doctor; however, he was not knowing even the name of Doctor or even the name of the hospital. Though he claims that he is able to identify Anilbhai Page 15 of 21 Uploaded by Raj Subhash Dhobi(HC01779) on Tue Jul 15 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 15 21:31:31 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1870/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/07/2025 undefined Vashrambhai, nowhere he has stated that how he came to know even Anilbhai Vashrambhai when he is also not knowing first-informant - Kamlaben, as claimed in his examination-in- chief. Furthermore, he claims in his examination-in-chief that at Cottage hospital, Upleta he was not given any treatment, whereas Doctor, who treated him and referred to higher center, issued even injury certificate, which is at Exhibit-26, for the expert opinion of Ophthalmologist.
6.5 Over and above that, as per claim made by injured eyewitness - Nathubhai Punjabhai Bagda, he could identify Anilbhai Vashrambhai by face, but how come he knows him as 'Anilbhai Vashrambhai' and who was 'Malo Patel', who assaulted him, as stated before the Doctor, that too, at Junagadh Government Hospital and not even at Upleta hospital. Though he claims that no incident has occurred between him and Anilbhai, but he claims that Anilbhai had beaten him in the courtyard of hospital where Anilbhai was beating one lady, named Kamlaben.
6.6 He has also corroborated the assertion of first- informant - Kamlaben about insulting words towards her caste. He claims that as he intervened, accused slapped him and gave kick and fist blow and there was something in his hand, Page 16 of 21 Uploaded by Raj Subhash Dhobi(HC01779) on Tue Jul 15 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 15 21:31:31 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1870/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/07/2025 undefined with which he was assaulted. However, witness - Nathubhai Punjabhai has different stories to tell for the weapon of offence and the name by whom he was beaten before both the Doctors at Upleta as also at Junagadh.
Before Dr. Hiteshbhai Laljibhai Kalaria at Cottage hospital, Upleta, in a history, he has stated that he was beaten with shoes without naming anyone, who has assaulted him, whereas before Dr. Kamuben Dahyalal Sagathiya at Junagadh hospital, he claims that he was assaulted with pipe by 'Malo Patel'. However injured eyewitness - PW-2 - Nathubhai Punjabhai has failed to identify any 'Malo Patel', who assaulted him, before the Court 6.7 Though first-informant - Kamlaben and injured eyewitness - Nathubhai Punjabhai have not named person, who assaulted them, it may not be important as well, they have come out with that name before Junagadh hospital, that too, as 'Mala Patel', a possibility cannot be ruled out that injured eyewitness - Nathubhai Punjabhai, who is of a different village, maybe of the caste of first-informant - Kamlaben, he is neither knowing Kamlaben nor the person, who assaulted him as 'Malo Patel' as also 'Anilbhai Vashrambhai'. Though he claimed that he could identify him by face Page 17 of 21 Uploaded by Raj Subhash Dhobi(HC01779) on Tue Jul 15 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 15 21:31:31 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1870/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/07/2025 undefined 6.8 If deposition of first-informant - Kamlaben is seen, in her examination-in-chief, though she has referred about the incident that she being slapped by the accused, which landed on her tooth, at Ramji Mandir, she claimed that accused consumed liquor. However, in her entire examination-in-chief, she has not referred about any insult to her caste by the accused, that too, within public view, though she cannot be said to be not supporting the case of prosecution, when she omits something to depose before the Court, she cannot be requested to be declared hostile and the learned Judge should not have readily granted the request to cross-examine the witness for such omission. Surprisingly, a novel idea is found out by the learned Prosecutor requesting the Court to declare her hostile without any reason shown and the learned Judge granted the same, where she admitted that, it had happened and it is so mentioned in the FIR in respect of insult to her caste within public view committed by the accused. 6.9 Be that as it may, if it is seen with her cross- examination and last line thereof, where she admitted that since accused had asked her not to sell liquor besides Ramji Mandir, a false complaint is filed by her against him, it can be certainly concluded that she is not the witness of the truth. At Page 18 of 21 Uploaded by Raj Subhash Dhobi(HC01779) on Tue Jul 15 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 15 21:31:31 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1870/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/07/2025 undefined the same time, so far as her injury is concerned, if it was such an injury, she could have immediately taken treatment even from the Doctor on that very day where she was to go for the purpose of taking the treatment of Chikungunya. Not only she went to Upleta hospital on the next day, no complaint came to be filed by her even at Upleta Police station, since no name of the person, who assaulted her, is given, even Doctor would not inform the Police at Upleta. Be that as it may, at Junagadh hospital, name of the accused, that too, as 'Malo Patel' is given as the person, who assaulted injured.
6.10 Coupled with the fact that, according to witness - Nathubhai Punjabhai, who is chance witness, an incident has occurred in the courtyard of hospital where accused was beating one lady whose name was Kamlaben, whereas according to first-informant - Kamlaben, incident occurred at Ramji Mandir. Though distance between the two may not be too far, certainly it is different and distinct, as coming out from the evidence, coupled with the fact that injured witness - Nathubhai Punjabhai reaching Cottage hospital Upleta at the very same time when first-informant reached there, may be a coincidence, but both were referred to higher center for the purpose of further treatment. Though injured witness - Page 19 of 21 Uploaded by Raj Subhash Dhobi(HC01779) on Tue Jul 15 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 15 21:31:31 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1870/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/07/2025 undefined Nathubhai Punjabhai has not named Anilbhai Vashrambhai before any Doctor and the person, who is named before the Doctor, is not referred to by that name before the Court. Though he claims not knowing first-informant - Kamlaben and a suggestion is also denied about the relationship with Kamlaben, fact remains that his deposition is also not free from doubt, considering the aforesaid instances. 6.11 Not only that, even weapon of offence is stated different at the Cottage hospital, Upleta as also at Junagadh hospital. Even Police Officer has not investigated whether he is assaulted either with the shoes or by a pipe. If at all it is ascertained, there appears no recovery or discovery of any of the weapons.
6.12 All these factors go to suggest that incident of assault has not occurred, as deposed to before the Court, that too, by the accused. At the same time, when she has admitted that a false case has been filed against the accused for the reasons mentioned hereinabove and for a grievance, for which false complaint is filed, as stated by victim in the last line of the cross-examination.
7. Since the judgment of acquittal suffers from no patent perversity, it is also not based on misreading or Page 20 of 21 Uploaded by Raj Subhash Dhobi(HC01779) on Tue Jul 15 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 15 21:31:31 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1870/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/07/2025 undefined omission to consider material evidence on record and when no view, other than the view taken by the learned Judge is possible from the evidence re-appreciated by this Court, it is impossible to interfere with the well-reasoned judgment and order of acquittal recorded by the learned Sessions Judge.
8. Therefore, in view of the decisions cited at the bar by the learned advocate for the respondent - accused and considering the proposition of law enunciated therein for the scope of power of interference in an acquittal appeal, I see no reason to interfere with the judgment and order of acquittal recorded by the learned Judge Hence, this appeal is dismissed.
Record and Proceedings be sent back to the trial Court forthwith.
Sd/-
(UMESH A. TRIVEDI, J.) Raj Page 21 of 21 Uploaded by Raj Subhash Dhobi(HC01779) on Tue Jul 15 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 15 21:31:31 IST 2025