Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Ghoghubha @ Ganendrasinh Bapalal Zala on 15 July, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1377/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL (AGAINST ACQUITTAL) NO. 1377 of 2014
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE S.V. PINTO
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
No
==========================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
GHOGHUBHA @ GANENDRASINH BAPALAL ZALA & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS. C.M.SHAH, APP for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR ASHISH M DAGLI for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3
NOTICE SERVED for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 4
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE S.V. PINTO
Date : 15/07/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. This appeal has been 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 learned 4th (Ad-hoc) Additional Sessions Judge & Special Judge, Dhrangadhra (hereinafter referred to as "the learned Trial Court") in Special (Atrocity) Case No. 41 of 2012 on 31.05.2014, whereby, the learned Trial Court has acquitted the respondents for the offence punishable under Sections 323, 504, 506(2) and 114 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereafter referred to as "IPC" for short) and Section 3 (I) (x) and 3 (i)(iv) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Page 1 of 18 Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Thu Jul 17 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 17 21:59:10 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1377/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2025 undefined Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as "Atrocities Act") and Section 135 of the Gujarat Police Act.
1.1 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 The complainant Nanjibhai Tabhabhai Vania had taken the agricultural land of Nanjibhai Govindbhai Vania residing at Narichana for cultivation and the same was not liked by the accused and on 3-6-
2012 at around 3.30 am, while the complainant and others were doing agricultural work in the field the accused Nos. 1 and 2 came and asked the complainant why had he taken the field of Nanjibhai Govindbhai for cultivation. The complainant told them that he was given the same by Nanjibhai Govindbhai and both the accused got agitated and used caste slurs and threatened to cut the complainant. The accused No. 1 slapped the complainant and hit the iron-pipe, which was in his hand on the left flank of the complainant and the accused No. 2 gave one blow with the pipe on the left leg of the complainant. Thereafter, early morning at around 5 am, all the three accused were abusing and passing by the house of the complainant and at that time witness Bharat restrained them Page 2 of 18 Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Thu Jul 17 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 17 21:59:10 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1377/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2025 undefined from using abusive language and the accused No. 3 caught hold of the collar of the witness and the accused Nos. 1 and 2 assaulted him with fists and caused him injuries and used abusive language and threatened to kill them, if they would cultivate the land. The complainant Nanjibhai Tabhabhai Vania filed the complaint at the Dhangadra Taluka Police Station under Sections 323, 504, 506(2) and 114 of IPC, 1860 and Section 3(i)(x) of the Atrocities Act, which was registered as II - C.R.No. 3043 of 2012.
2.2 The Investigating Officer recorded the statements of the connected witnesses and seized the necessary documents and after completion of investigation, a chargesheet came to be filed before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Dhrangadhra and as the said offences against the accused was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the case was committed to the Sessions Court, Dhrangadhra as per the provisions of Section 209 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and case was registered Special (Atrocities) Case No. 41 of 2012.
2.3 The accused were duly served with the summons and the accused appeared before the learned Trial Court, and it was verified whether the copies of all the police papers were provided to the accused as per the provisions of Section 207 of the Code. A charge at Exh. 8 was framed against the accused and the statements of the accused were recorded at Page 3 of 18 Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Thu Jul 17 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 17 21:59:10 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1377/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2025 undefined Exh. 9 to 11, wherein, the accused denied all the contents of the charge and the entire evidence of the prosecution was taken on record. 2.4 The prosecution produced sixteen oral evidences and fifteen documentary evidences to bring home charge against the accused and after the learned Additional Public Prosecutor filed the closing pursis at Exh. 52, the further statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 were recorded, wherein, the accused denied all the evidence of the prosecution on record. The accused refused to step into the witness box or examine witnesses on their behalf and state that a false case has been filed against them. After the arguments of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and the learned advocate for the accused were heard, the learned trial Court by the impugned judgment and order was pleased to acquit all the accused from all the charges leveled against them.
3. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said judgement and order of acquittal, the appellant - State has filed the present appeal mainly stating that the impugned judgement and order of acquittal passed by the learned Trial Court is contrary to law and evidence on record and the learned Trial Court has not appreciated the fact that all the witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution and during cross-examination, nothing adverse has been elicited in favour of the respondents. The case Page 4 of 18 Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Thu Jul 17 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 17 21:59:10 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1377/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2025 undefined has been proved beyond reasonable doubts and the prosecution has successfully established the case against the respondents and the judgement and order of acquittal is unwarranted, illegal and without any basis in the eyes of law and the reasons stated while acquitting the respondents are improper, perverse and bad in law. Hence the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Trial Court deserves to be quashed and set aside.
4. Heard learned APP Ms. Chetna Shah for the appellant State and learned advocate Mr. Ashish Dagli appearing for the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3. Though served, the respondent No.4 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.
5. Learned APP Ms. Chetna Shah has taken this Court through the entire evidence of the prosecution on record of the case and submitted that the judgment and order of acquittal is contrary to law and evidence on record and the learned trial Court has not appreciated the direct and indirect evidence in the case. That the complainant has supported the case of the prosecution and the witnesses have identified the accused before the learned trial Court. The prosecution has fully proved the case beyond reasonable doubts but the learned trial Court has relied on minor Page 5 of 18 Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Thu Jul 17 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 17 21:59:10 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1377/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2025 undefined contradictions and has given undue weightage with regard to the place of incident. That the order passed by the learned trial Court is illegal, improper and perverse and is required to be quashed and set aside and the appeal of the appellant must be allowed.
6. Learned advocate Mr. Ashish Dagli appearing for the respondent Nos. 1,2 and 3 submits that the judgments and order has been passed after appreciation of all the evidence and the learned Court has appreciated the evidence in proper perspective and hence, the appeal of the appellant-State must be rejected.
7. At the outset, before discussing the facts of the present case, it would be appropriate to refer to the observations of the Apex Court in the case of Chandrappa & Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka reported in 2007 (4) SCC 415, wherein, the Apex Court has observed as under:
Recently, in Kallu v. State of M.P., (2006) 10 SCC 313 : AIR 2006 SC 831, this Court stated; "While deciding an appeal against acquittal, the power of the Appellate Court is no less than the power exercised while hearing appeals against conviction. In both types of appeals, the power exists to review the entire evidence. However, one significant difference is that an order of acquittal will not be interfered with, by an appellate court, where the judgment of the trial court is based on evidence and the view taken is reasonable and plausible. It will not reverse the decision of the trial court merely because a different view is possible. The appellate court will also bear in mind that there is a presumption of innocence in favour of the accused and the accused is entitled to get the benefit of any doubt. Further if it decides to interfere, it should assign reasons for differing with the decision of the trial court". (emphasis supplied) 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;
Page 6 of 18 Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Thu Jul 17 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 17 21:59:10 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1377/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2025 undefined
(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.
(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.
8. The law with regard to acquittal appeals is well crystallized and in acquittal appeals, there is a presumption of innocence in favour of the accused and it has finally culminated when a case ends in an acquittal. The learned Trial Court has appreciated all the evidence and when the learned Trial Court has come to a conclusion that the prosecution has not proved the case beyond reasonable doubts, the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused gets strengthened. There is no inhibition to re appreciate the evidence by the Appellate Court but if after re Page 7 of 18 Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Thu Jul 17 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 17 21:59:10 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1377/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2025 undefined 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.
9. In light on the above settled principles of law and considering the evidence on the prosecution, to bring home the charge against the accused, the prosecution has examined Prosecution Witness No.1 Najibhai Tabhabhai at Exh.14, who is the complainant. The witness has narrated all the facts of the complaint, which is produced at Exh.15. The witness has stated that, after he was assaulted, they were taken to the government hospital at Dhangadhra and thereafter they were referred to Surendranagar for further treatment and he and his son had taken treatment at TB Hospital Surendranagar where he was kept as an inward patient for 5 days.
During the cross-examination, the witness has stated that the land of Nanjibhai Narichanawala is survey No. 608 and it was tilled by Gogubha a few days prior to the incident. In his further statement before the Investigating Officer, the complainant had stated that the land was tilled at around 3.30 am in the morning and there was a dispute regarding the land taken for cultivation from Nanjibhai Narichanawala. 9.1 The prosecution has examined Prosecution Witness No. 2 - Popatbhai Harjibhai at Exh.16 and Prosecution Witness No. 3 - Maheshbhai Devsibhai Parmar at Exh.18 and both the witnesses are the Page 8 of 18 Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Thu Jul 17 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 17 21:59:10 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1377/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2025 undefined panch-witnesses of the panchnama of the place of offence, which is produced at Exh.17. Both the witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution and have been declared hostile. 9.2 Prosecution Witness No. 4 - Vasudevbhai Ratilal examined at Exh. 19 and Prosecution Witness No. 5 - Maheshbhai Ramjibhai Tank examined at Exh. 22 and both the witnesses are the panch-witnesses of the arrest panchnama by which the accused were arrested which is produced at Exh.20. Both the witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution and have been declared hostile and cross examined at length by the learned APP but nothing to support the case of the prosecution has come on record.
9.3 Prosecution Witness No. 6 - Vinodbhai Nanjibhai Vaniya examined at Exh.23 is the son of the complainant and he has stated that, on the day of the incident, they were sleeping at the agricultural field when suddenly they heard some shouting and he and his brother woke up and saw his father was being assaulted by Gogubha with a pipe. They both ran to the place where his father was and intervened and the pipe, which was in Gogubha's hand fell down and the pipe was taken by Rajubhai and while he was taking his father towards the house he was injured with the pipe on the left leg. They reached their house at about 5 to 5.30 am and he told his mother about the incident. That at that Page 9 of 18 Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Thu Jul 17 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 17 21:59:10 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1377/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2025 undefined time, all the three accused were passing by their house and the accused No. 3 had caught the hold of the collar of Bharat and his mother intervened and released Bharat from their clutches. The 108 Ambulance was called and they were all taken to the hospital at Dhrangandhra and thereafter they were referred to Surendranagar TB hospital.
During the cross-examination, the witness has stated that the incident had occurred when Gogubha was tilling the land. 9.4 Prosecution Witness No. 7 - Bharatbhai Nanjibhai Vaniya examined at Exh.24 is the son of the complainant, who has supported the contents of the complainant and has stated that he was sleeping, when his father was assaulted and he went to save him.
During the cross-examination, the witness has stated that prior to the incident, the land was tilled and he, his father and his two brothers were sleeping in the land near the borewell. At that time, at night Gogubha was driving the tractor and tilling the land and there was a verbal altercation between his father and the accused and they heard the sounds and woke up.
9.5 Prosecution Witness No. 8 - Paluben Nanjibhai at Exh. 27, Prosecution Witness No. 9 - Dudabhai Tabhabhai at Exh. 28 and Prosecution Witness No. 10 - Danabhai Tabhabhai examined at Exh. 29 Page 10 of 18 Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Thu Jul 17 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 17 21:59:10 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1377/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2025 undefined and all the witnesses were not eyewitnesses to the incident but they came to know about the incident from the say of the complainant and his sons.
During the cross-examination, all the witnesses have stated that they are not eyewitnesses to the incident but had heard about the incident from some persons.
9.6 The prosecution has examined Prosecution Witness No. 11 - Manjuben Shamjibhai at Exh. 29 and the witness has stated that at around 5.30 in the morning she heard some sounds and she saw Gogubha had caught the collar of Nanjibhai's son but thereafter she went into the house and she does not know anything else. The mother of Bharat had intervened and freed him from Gogubha.
9.8 The prosecution has examined Prosecution Witness No. 12 - Vanrajsinh Dadubha at Exh. 30 and as per the case of the prosecution, this witness was an eyewitness to the incident but he has not supported the case of the prosecution and has been declared hostile and cross- examined at length by the learned APP but nothing to support the case of the prosecution has come on record.
9.9 The prosecution has examined Prosecution Witness No. 13 - Dr. Shri Javlant Bhanushankar Joshi at Exh.34 and the witness was working as a Medical Officer at C.U.Shah Medical College Hospital, Surendranagar on 3.6.2012 and while he was on duty at around 10.19 Page 11 of 18 Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Thu Jul 17 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 17 21:59:10 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1377/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2025 undefined Hrs., Nanjibhai Tabhabhai Vania resident of Jiva, Taluka: Dhangadra had come for treatment to the hospital. In the history the witness has stated that he was assaulted with an iron pipe in the morning at around 3.30 pm near the field at Jiva by Ghoghabhai. The patient was conscious and oriented and he had an imprint bruise over left flank measuring around 15 centimeter x 7 centimeter with skin discoloration. The patient was admitted in casualty and his chest x-ray and x-rays were normal.
During the cross-examination, the witness has stated that if a person is hit with an iron pipe on the flank, it would leave a mark and if a person was trying to climb onto the tractor while running and if he is injured, the injury as were found on the body of the patient could be sustained.
9.10 Prosecution Witness No. 14 - Dr. Shri Anupkumar Arvindkumar Jayswal examined at Exh. 39 was working at the Government Hospital, Dharangadhra on 3.6.2012 when Vinodbhai Nanjibhai Vania was brought for treatment at around 6.50 am without a police yadi. The witness has stated that in the history, he had stated that on 3.6.2012 at around 3.30 am, while he was working as a laborer in the field of Vanuba Daduba Jhala, he was assaulted with an iron pipe and when he went home they came to his house and threatened him and at that time Raviraj Tejuba Jhala, Vishal Popat Jhala, Ghoghubha Bapalal Page 12 of 18 Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Thu Jul 17 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 17 21:59:10 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1377/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2025 undefined Jhala and Rajuba Tembha Jhala had assaulted him. On examination, the witness had a reddish bruise mark on the back of left thigh, lower extremity and the injury was a simple injury, which was fresh and could be sustained by a hard and blunt object and the recovery would be within 5 days if no complication occurs. The witness has produced the injury certificate of Vinodbhai Nanjibhai Vania at Exh.40. On the same day, at the same time, Nanjibhai Tabhabhai Vania was brought to the hospital and the history was given by the patient himself and he had stated that Ghoghabhai Bapulal Jhala, Rajuba Temba Jhala all residents of village Jiva, Taluka Dhrangadhra had assaulted him at 3.30 am on 3.6.2012 by an iron pipe at the field of Vanuba Daduba Jhala in village Jiva where the patient was working as a laborer. When the patient with other people returned to his house after being assaulted by the above people, they came to his residence and threatened that if he came out from his house his residential place would be torched into flames. The persons threatening him were Raviraj Tejuba Jhala, Vishal Popat Jhala, Ghoghubha Bapulal Jhala and Rajuba Temba Jhala and they were all residents of village Jiva. On examination the patient had pain with reddish bruise plus reddish abrasion on left waist, on lower back on left lateral side. The patient was referred to department of surgery CU Shah Medical College, Surendranagar and the Taluka police were informed.
Page 13 of 18 Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Thu Jul 17 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 17 21:59:10 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1377/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2025 undefined
The injuries could be sustained by a hard and blunt object and the witness has produced the medical certificate at Exh.41. At the same time patient Bharatpai Nanjipai Vania was brought at 6.50am and in the history he had stated that Goguba Bapulal Jhala, Rajuba Temba Jhala, Raviraj Tejuba Jhala and Vishal Popat Jhala had come to his house in village Jiva and his multicoloured t-shirt was torn by the assailants and he was threatened with murder and his house will be torched into flames. On examination, a reddish nail abrasion mark was found on the left forearm upper left extremity. The injury was a simple abrasion with a nail and the probable recovery time was 5 days if no complication arises. The witness has produced the medical certificate at exhibit 42. During the cross-examination by the learned advocate for the accused the witness has stated that the patients had come with Dudhabha Tabhubha Vania and the complaint of pain could be imaginary. 9.11 Prosecution Witness No. 15 - Prakashbhai Mohanbhai Bhaliya examined at Exh. 45 is the Investigating Officer who has narrated in detail the procedure undertaken by him during investigation. The witness has stated that the incident had occurred early in the morning and it was regarding the agricultural land of Nanjibhai Nariachanawala and in the investigation it was found that the land was tilled by Ghoghubha with a tractor.
Page 14 of 18 Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Thu Jul 17 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 17 21:59:10 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1377/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2025 undefined 9.12 Prosecution Witness No. 16 - Dalabhai Gagabhai Parghi
examined at Exh. 48 is the PSO who has registered the complaint and he has produced the extract of the Station Diary at Exh.49.
10. On appreciation of the entire evidence of the prosecution, as per the case of the prosecution, the incident has occurred at the field of Nanjbhai Narichanawala at around 3.30 am when the complainant and other labourers were working in the field and the second incident occurred near their house at around 5 am. In the first incident, only the accused Nos. 1 and 2 were present and in the second incident all the three accused were present. If the panchnama of the place of offence produced at Exh.17 is perused, the place of incident as shown by witness Bharatbhai Nanjibhai Vania, was near the edge of the field of Vanrajsinh Dadubha Jhala near the water bore in a vacant land. The water bore was about 10 feet away and there was a small room at that place. As per the panchnama, the land was tilled one day earlier. The incident has occurred as per the complaint at 03.30 am, when only the complainant and his two sons were present and the complainant was injured with an iron pipe on his left flank and his son Vinodbhai was injured on the left leg with the pipe. If, the medical certificate of witness Vinodbhai Nanjibhai produced at Exh.40 and the medical certificate of the complainant Nanjibhai Tabhabhai Vania produced at Exh.41 are perused, they are simple injuries Page 15 of 18 Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Thu Jul 17 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 17 21:59:10 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1377/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2025 undefined and the injury of Nanjibhai is a reddish abrasion on the left waist and lower back, which could be sustained when trying to climb on a tractor as per the opinion of the medical officer - Prosecution Witness No. 13 Dr. Jwalant Bhanushankar Joshi. The injuries of witness Bharat Nanjibhai Vania are simple and there was a reddish nail abrasion mark on his left forearm as per his say his collar was caught but there are no injuries on the neck and, in the entire evidence, there appears to be an exaggeration in the version of Prosecution Witness No. 6 Vinodbhai Nanjibhai Vania and Prosecution Witness No. 7 Bharatbhai Nanjibhai Vania. As per the complainant, he has stated that they were working in the field at 3.30 am but both his sons Prosecution Witness No. 6 Vinodbhai Nanjibhai Vania and Prosecution Witness No. 7 Bharatbhai Nanjibhai Vania have stated that they were sleeping and they heard the sounds and they woke up and saw that his father was being assaulted by the accused. In the evidence, the complainant does not say that any caste- slurs or abuses were used by the accused and the second incident has occurred in front of the house, which is the residential area but no independent witnesses or neighbors have supported the case of the prosecution. Prosecution Witness No. 6 Vinodbhai Nanjibhai Vania and Prosecution Witness No. 7 Bharatbhai Nanjibhai Vania also do not state that any caste-slurs were used by the accused and even otherwise at 3.30 Page 16 of 18 Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Thu Jul 17 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 17 21:59:10 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1377/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2025 undefined am, there were no other persons in the field and it was not a public place. In the history before the Medical Officer, the complainant and the injured witnesses in the medical certificates produced at Exh.40, Exh.41 and Exh.42 have named many more persons than the accused persons and it has emerged on record that there was a dispute about the agricultural land of Nanjibhai Govindbhai Vania that was taken for cultivation by the complainant.
11. 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 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.
Page 17 of 18 Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Thu Jul 17 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 17 21:59:10 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1377/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2025 undefined
12. The impugned judgement and order of acquittal passed by learned 4th (Ad-hoc) Additional Sessions Judge & Special Judge, Dhrangadhra in Special (Atrocity) Case No. 41 of 2012 on 31.05.2014, is hereby confirmed.
13. Bail bond stands cancelled. Record and proceedings be sent back to the concerned Trial Court forthwith.
Sd/-
(S. V. PINTO,J) VVM Page 18 of 18 Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Thu Jul 17 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 17 21:59:10 IST 2025