Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Rajendrabhai Alias Rajeshbhai ... on 15 July, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1479/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL (AGAINST ACQUITTAL) NO. 1479 of 2013
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE S.V. PINTO
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting No
==========================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
RAJENDRABHAI ALIAS RAJESHBHAI BACHUBHAI RATHOD & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS. C.M. SHAH, APP for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR.HARDIK BHARHMBHAT(3741) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No.
1,2
NOTICE SERVED for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 3
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE S.V. PINTO
Date : 15/07/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. The appeal is filed by the appellant State under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the judgement and order of acquittal passed by the learned Special Judge and Additional Sessions Judge, Anand (hereinafter referred to as "the learned Trial Court") in Special Case Atro No. 20/2011 on 16.04.2013, whereby, the learned Trial Court has acquitted the respondents extending benefit of doubt for the offence punishable under Sections Page 1 of 21 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Wed Jul 16 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 16 23:03:31 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1479/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2025 undefined 323, 504, 506(2) and 114 of IPC and Section 3(1)(10) of Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as "the Atrocity Act" for short).
1.1 During the pendency of the appeal, the respondent no. 2 - Bhaveshbhai Mahendrabhai Suthar expired on 23.10.2016 and the certificate of Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat, Magharol, Taluka Sojitra, District Anand is produced on record. In view of the same, the appeal qua the respondent no. 2 stands abated.
1.2 The respondents are hereinafter referred to as "the accused" in the rank and file 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 On 14.01.2011, at around 19.30 hours, Rameshbhai Naranbhai Rohit - the brother of the complainant Devjibhai Naranbhai Rohit was returning from his field and when he came to the Goya lake at village Magrol, the accused met him and as they had an earlier dispute about the road Page 2 of 21 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Wed Jul 16 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 16 23:03:31 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1479/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2025 undefined passing through their field, they assaulted him with fists and abused him and used caste slurs and threatened to kill him. The complainant - Devjibhai Naranbhai Rohit filed the complaint at the Sojitra Police Station under Sections 323, 504, 506(2) and 114 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(1)(10) of the Atrocity Act which came to be registered as Sojitra Police Station II - C.R. No. 3003 of 2011. 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, Khambhat and as the said offences against the accused were exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the case was committed to the Sessions Court, Anand as per the provisions of Section 209 of Code of Criminal Procedure and the case was registered as Special Atrocity Case No. 20/2011.
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 Page 3 of 21 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Wed Jul 16 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 16 23:03:31 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1479/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2025 undefined provided to the accused as per the provisions of Section 207 of the Code. A charge at Exh. 5 was framed against the accused and the statements of the accused was recorded at Exhs. 6 and 7 wherein, the accused denied the contents of the charge and the entire evidence of the prosecution was taken on record.
2.4 The prosecution examined 15 witnesses and produced 11 documentary evidences on record in support of their case and after the learned Additional Public Prosecutor filed the closing pursis, the further statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was recorded and 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 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 filed the present appeal mainly stating that the impugned judgment and order of acquittal passed by the learned Trial Page 4 of 21 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Wed Jul 16 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 16 23:03:31 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1479/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2025 undefined 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 Ms. C.M. Shah for the appellant State and learned advocate Mr. Hardik Brahmbhatt for the respondent no. 1. Though served, the respondent no. 3 - original complainant has 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. Page 5 of 21 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Wed Jul 16 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 16 23:03:31 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1479/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2025 undefined
5. Learned APP Ms. C.M. Shah has taken this Court through the entire evidence of the prosecution on record of the case and 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. Hardik Brahmbhatt for the respondent no. 1 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 & 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:
Page 6 of 21 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Wed Jul 16 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 16 23:03:31 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1479/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2025 undefined "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 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', Page 7 of 21 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Wed Jul 16 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 16 23:03:31 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1479/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2025 undefined '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.
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 Page 8 of 21 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Wed Jul 16 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 16 23:03:31 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1479/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2025 undefined 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 - Devjibhai Naranbhai Rohit at Exh. 13 and the witness is the complainant who has filed the complaint which is produced at Exh. 14. As per the complaint, the witness has stated that the incident had occurred on 14.01.2011 and he heard his brother shouting and when he went to the place of incident he saw the accused assaulting his brother, abusing him and using caste slurs. A number of persons gathered there and the accused went away from there and they called the 108 Page 9 of 21 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Wed Jul 16 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 16 23:03:31 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1479/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2025 undefined Ambulance and took his brother to the hospital. His brother Ramesh was injured on the forehead and he was unconscious and he regained consciousness after 24 hours. The witness has produced the complaint at Exh. 14 and his caste certificate at Exh. 15. In the cross-examination, the witness has admitted that he reached the place as he heard shouts and at that time there were about 30 to 35 persons gathered there. His brother was injured on the forehead and after he reached the place, his other brother Mahijibhai reached there.
8.1 PW2 - Mahijibhai Naranbhai Rohit has been examined at Exh. 16 and the witness is the brother of the complainant and the injured witness Ramesh who has stated that at the time of the incident he was at his house and the accused were assaulting his brother and he went to intervene as his house was nearby. It was dark at the time of the incident and his brother was injured on the head and at that time there were 15 to 20 persons gathered there. His brother was taken to the hospital and besides this nothing else had taken place. In the cross-examination, the witness Page 10 of 21 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Wed Jul 16 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 16 23:03:31 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1479/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2025 undefined has admitted that he had gone to the place after he heard the shouts and his brother Devji was already present at the place of incident and there was a crowd of about 25 persons at the spot.
8.2 PW3 - Rameshbhai Naranbhai Rohit examined at Exh. 17 is the injured witness who has fully supported the case of the prosecution. The witness has stated that he was injured on the forehead and nose but he does not know with what weapon he was injured and the witness has produced his caste certificate at Exh. 18. During the cross- examination, the witness has stated that on 14.01.2011 there was a quarrel in the village and he had gone to see the quarrel and at that time it was dark. There was a crowd of about 15 to 20 persons and he does not know in the dark what weapon was used. He had a tussle with the accused about the accused going to their field from the edge of his field and when he was injured, 25 to 30 persons had gathered and his brother Devji had come. He was unconscious after the incident and he does not know who had uttered what words at the time of the incident. Page 11 of 21 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Wed Jul 16 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 16 23:03:31 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1479/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2025 undefined 8.3 PW4 - Bhailalbhai Khodabhai Rohit examined at Exh. 21 is an eyewitness as per the case of the prosecution but he has not supported the case of the prosecution and has been declared hostile. The witness has been cross- examined at length by the learned APP but nothing to support the case of the prosecution has come on record. 8.4 PW5 - Bhailalbhai Naranbhai Rohit examined at Exh. 22 is also an eyewitness as per the case of the prosecution and he has stated that at the time of the incident he was at home but when he heard the shouts, he went to the place of incident and he saw the accused assaulting his brother Ramesh who was injured on the forehead. The witness has stated that the accused had told his brother to go wherever he wanted to go and during the cross-examination, he has admitted that he was at his house at the time of the incident. It was dark and after he heard the shouts, he reached at the place of incident when both his brothers i.e. Devji and Mahiji were present and there was a crowd of about 25 persons gathered there. The witness has also admitted that it was dark at the time of the incident and Page 12 of 21 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Wed Jul 16 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 16 23:03:31 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1479/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2025 undefined they could not recognize who was present there and his brother Ramesh was lying on the ground.
8.5 PW6 - Manubhai Mafatbhai Rathore examined at Exh. 23 is an eyewitness as per the case of the prosecution but the witness has not supported the case of the prosecution and has categorically stated that he has not seen anything and does not know about any incident that had taken place. The witness has been declared hostile and has been cross examined at length by the learned APP but nothing to support the case of the prosecution has emerged on record during the cross-examination.
8.6 PW7 - Savitaben wife of Devjibhai Rohit examined at Exh. 24 has also stated that she was at home at the time of the incident and when she heard the shouts she went and saw the accused assaulting her brother-in-law - Rameshbhai. During the cross-examination the witness has stated that it was dark at the time of the incident as it was winter and a crowd of 20 to 25 persons were present and when her husband reached the spot, her brother-in-law - Rameshbhai was lying on the ground and unconscious. He Page 13 of 21 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Wed Jul 16 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 16 23:03:31 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1479/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2025 undefined was taken to the hospital in the 108 Ambulance and as it was dark no person could be identified.
8.7 The prosecution has examined PW8 - Jashodaben Bhailalbhai Rohit at Exh. 25 and the witness has stated that she was at home at the time of the incident and on hearing the shout she ran to the spot and found that the accused were assaulting her brother-in-law - Rameshbhai. During the cross-examination she has stated that she does not know who had assaulted whom as there was a crowd of people and when she reached there Bhailal Khoda was present and it was dark and there were many persons. 8.8 PW9 - Mahendrabhai Maneklal Mistry examined at Exh. 27 is the panch witness of the arrest Panchnama produced at Exh. 28. The witness has supported the case of the prosecution.
8.9 PW10 - Dr. Rakeshkumar Mahendrabhai Patel examined at Exh. 29 was working as a Medical Officer at the emergency at Shri Krishna Hospital, Karamsad on 14.01.2011 and at 10.40 pm Rameshbhai Naranbhai Rohit residing at Magrol, Rohitwas Taluka, Sojitra was brought by Page 14 of 21 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Wed Jul 16 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 16 23:03:31 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1479/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2025 undefined his brother Devjibhai Naranbhai Rohit with a refer chit of Community Health Centre, Tarapur. The refer chit is produced at Exh. 30 and in the history, the patient's brother Devjibhai had stated that on 14.01.2011 at around 7 pm he was injured at Magrol, Wagriwas at the edge of the lake. His head was banged on the ground and he was injured. The injured had a CLW 1 cm x 1 cm x 1 cm over the forehead, multiple abrasions over the forehead and one abrasion over the nose and all the injuries were simple injuries which could be caused by a blunt weapon. The injuries would heal within seven to ten days if no complications arise and the medical certificate is produced at Exh. 31. During the cross-examination, the witness has admitted that if a person would fall down while running he could sustain such injuries.
8.10 PW11 - Vitthalbhai Budhabhai Rathod examined at Exh. 32 and PW12 - Sureshbhai Khushalbhai Rohit at Exh. 34 are the panch witnesses of the panchnama of the place of offence which is produced at Exh. 33 and both the witnesses have stated that the police had asked them to Page 15 of 21 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Wed Jul 16 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 16 23:03:31 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1479/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2025 undefined affix their signature on the panchnama and they had done so. The witnesses have been declared hostile as they have not supported the case of the prosecution and have been cross-examined at length by the learned APP but nothing to support the case of the prosecution has come on record. 8.11 PW13 - Mansukhbhai Kanjibhai Gurjar examined at Exh. 36 is the Police Inspector, Sojitra Police Station who had recorded the complaint of the complainant. 8.12 PW14 - Praveenbhai Somabhai Rohit examined at Exh. 43 has stated that on 14.01.2011 at around 07.30 pm he was at his house and at that time there was a quarrel between the accused and Rameshbhai Naranbhai Rohit and as there were shouts heard he had gone to the lake. He saw that Rameshbhai Naranbhai was injured and he was taken to hospital. Rameshbhai was first taken to the Government Hospital at Tarapur and thereafter to Shri Krishna Medical Hospital at Karamsad and on the next day Rameshbhai and his brother Devjibhai went and filed the case against the accused. He does not know anything else besides this. The witness has denied that when he went to the place of Page 16 of 21 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Wed Jul 16 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 16 23:03:31 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1479/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2025 undefined offence, anyone was using any slurs or abuses. The witness has not supported the case of the prosecution and has been declared hostile. During the cross examination by the learned advocate for the accused the witness has stated that when he reached the place of incident there were a number of persons gathered there and Rameshbhai was injured.
8.13 PW15 - Abubakar Muhammadbhai Mansuri examined at Exh. 44 is the Investigating Officer who has narrated in detail the procedure undertaken by him during investigation. During the cross examination he has stated that the caste certificate of the complainant was not given along with the complaint and when he recorded the statements of the complainant and the injured witness, they had given their caste certificates.
9. On minute appreciation of the entire evidence of the prosecution the evidence that has emerged on record is that as per the case of the prosecution, the injured witness PW3
- Rameshbhai Naranbhai Rohit was returning from his field and while he was on the road near Goya Lake, the accused Page 17 of 21 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Wed Jul 16 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 16 23:03:31 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1479/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2025 undefined met him and assaulted him. The witnesses who have stated that they were eyewitnesses including the complainant PW1
- Devjibhai Naranbhai Rohit, PW2 - Maijibhai Naranbhai Rohit, PW4 - Bhailalbhai Khodabhai Rohit, PW5 - Bhailalbhai Naranbhai Rohit, PW6 - Manubhai Mafatbhai Rathod, PW7 - Savitaben Devjibhai Rohit, PW8 - Jashodaben Bhailalbhai Rohit and PW14 - Praveenbhai Somabhai Rohit were all residents of Rohitvas and in all their evidence it has emerged that when they leave their house at Rohitvas, there is the Jogini Mata Temple and thereafter, is the Vagrivas and the Goya lake. Hence, if they wanted to go to Goya lake from their house they have to cross the Jogini Mata Temple and the Vagrivas and thereafter, they would reach the Goya lake. All the witnesses are mainly the family members and neighbors of the complainant and the injured witness and there is a dispute between the parties about the way which is used by the accused to go to their field. Moreover, in the evidence the complainant or the other witnesses do not state that the caste slurs were used against any persons and all the Page 18 of 21 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Wed Jul 16 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 16 23:03:31 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1479/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2025 undefined witnesses have admitted that at the time of the incident it was dark and about 20 to 25 persons had gathered and they could not recognize who was present. PW3 - Rameshbhai Naranbhai Rohit the injured has stated that he does not know who hit him in the dark and he has not identified the accused during his deposition. Moreover, immediately after the incident, as per the case of the prosecution the injured was taken to Community Health Center, Tarapur but there is no evidence about the treatment taken by the injured at Community Health Center, Tarapur that has come on record. PW10 is the Medical Officer who has treated the injured at Shri Krishna Medical Hospital, Karamsad and in the injury certificate produced at Exh. 31 the history has been given by the complainant - PW1 - Devjibhai Naranbhai Rohit - the brother of the injured who has stated that there was an assault on his brother by striking his head to the road at around 07.00 pm on 14.01.2011 at Maghrol Nawa Vagriwas near the bank of the pond but the complainant has not named the accused as the persons who had assaulted him. Page 19 of 21 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Wed Jul 16 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 16 23:03:31 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1479/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2025 undefined In the entire evidence it has also emerged that at the time of the incident the accused and the injured witness - Rameshbhai were alone and all the witnesses have reached after the incident has occurred and at the time of the incident, as it was dark they could not identify who was the person who has assaulted the injured witness. Moreover, the Medical Officer - PW10 - Dr. Rakeshkumar Mahendrabhai Patel has stated that the injuries were simple and could be sustained when a person falls on the ground. There is nothing on record to show that any weapon was used by the accused and the injured witness does not identify the person who had assaulted him.
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 Page 20 of 21 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Wed Jul 16 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 16 23:03:31 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1479/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2025 undefined 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 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 Special Judge and Additional Sessions Judge, Anand in Special Case Atro No. 20/2011 on 16.04.2013, 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) VASIM S. SAIYED Page 21 of 21 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Wed Jul 16 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 16 23:03:31 IST 2025