Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Bhurubha Raghubha Vaghela on 24 June, 2025
Author: Umesh A. Trivedi
Bench: Umesh A. Trivedi
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1946/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/06/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1946 of 2010
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH A. TRIVEDI Sd/-
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
✓
==========================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
BHURUBHA RAGHUBHA VAGHELA & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS. MEGHA CHITALIYA, ADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the
Appellant(s) No. 1
NOTICE SERVED for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 2
RULE SERVED for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH A. TRIVEDI
Date : 24/06/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
[1] This is an Appeal filed by the State of Gujarat under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'the Code') challenging the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the learned Special Judge, Dhrangadhra, Surendranagar dated 25.08.2010 in Special Case No.1 of 2009, whereby respondent No.1 - accused came to be acquitted of the charges levelled against him for the offences punishable under Page 1 of 11 Uploaded by LALJI AMRUTBHAI DESAI(HC01558) on Fri Jun 27 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Jun 28 01:39:11 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1946/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/06/2025 undefined Sections 504 and 506(2) of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC') as also under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short 'the Atrocities Act').
[2] During the pendency of this appeal, with a request of learned APP, respondent No.2 - original first informant was joined as party respondent No.2. Endorsement on the cause-list shows that respondent No.2 is served. However, he is neither present in person or through an advocate. At the same time, notice of admission of this appeal is also served upon respondent No.1- accused but he is also not present in person or through an advocate. Therefore, with the help of the learned APP, hearing of this appeal was taken up.
[3] As per the case of the prosecution, on 25.09.2008 at about 5:00 p.m., the first informant of the case went to Gram Panchayat Office of Village- Jegadva to represent about damage to his house due to heavy rain in the village before persons who had come from the Taluka Office carrying out the survey. It is the prosecution's case that when first informant stated about carrying out survey of his house, accused got enraged, abused and administered threat of dire consequences. Despite, Page 2 of 11 Uploaded by LALJI AMRUTBHAI DESAI(HC01558) on Fri Jun 27 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Jun 28 01:39:11 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1946/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/06/2025 undefined according to the case of the prosecution, accused was knowing that first informant is of scheduled caste, he uttered abusive word towards his caste in public place within public view. Therefore, according to the case of the prosecution, accused committed aforesaid offences.
[3.1] On FIR for the offences being registered and on conclusion of the investigation, charge-sheet has come to be filed. Charge against the accused came to be framed vide Exhibit-3. However, accused did not plead guilty, and claimed to be tried.
[3.2] To prove the case of the accused, prosecution examined 9 witnesses and produced and proved nearly 7 documents. Out of 9 witnesses examined, 3 are panch witnesses and 2 are police witnesses. So far as panch witnesses are concerned, panch witness to the panchnama of arrest and physical condition of the accused has supported the case of the prosecution but physical condition of the accused and arrest as stated at the time and date is not disputed. Therefore, his deposition, so far as offence is concerned, is not relevant. However, 2 panch witnesses, (PW-2) - Ashokbhai Muljibhai Rathod and (PW-3) - Mohanbhai Govindbhai Rathod, they are Page 3 of 11 Uploaded by LALJI AMRUTBHAI DESAI(HC01558) on Fri Jun 27 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Jun 28 01:39:11 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1946/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/06/2025 undefined panch witnesses to the scene of offence panchnama. However, during the course of recording evidence, they have not supported the case of the prosecution. They are panch witnesses to the scene of offence panchnama. However, to the deposition of even investigating officer, that panchnama can be proved and therefore, place where offence occurred is also not in dispute, despite panch witnesses to the scene of offence panchanama, have turned hostile, it loses its significance. [3.3] 2 Police witnesses have stated about their official duties carried out, however, out of 4 important witnesses including first informant (PW-4) - Chaturbhai Galabhai, 2 eye witnesses (PW-5) - Hirabhai Chhaganbhai Rathod who is of the caste of the first informant, has also not supported the case of the prosecution. Though, at Panchayat Office accused - Bhurubha arrived and told that "torn off the papers and no survey is to be carried out", there is no dispute. Furthermore, accused- Bhurubha abused first informant - Chaturbhai as also (PW-5) - Hirabhai Chhaganbhai Rathod, however, there is no further evidence of eye witness - Hirabhai Chhaganbhai Rathod so far as alleged incident of committing an offence under 'the Atrocities Act' or 'IPC'. To that part of the evidence, witness has Page 4 of 11 Uploaded by LALJI AMRUTBHAI DESAI(HC01558) on Fri Jun 27 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Jun 28 01:39:11 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1946/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/06/2025 undefined not supported the case of the prosecution.
[3.4] One Karsanbhai Parshottambhai Makwana (PW-6) who was Sarpanch at the relevant time and present at the scene of offence has also not supported the case of the prosecution so far as alleged incident is concerned. On the contrary, except there is some verbal altercation between the accused and first informant, there appears no evidence on record. Remaining witness (PW-7) - Jagdishbhai Khushalbhai Kanjiya who is Talati-cum-Mantri, though he has not been declared hostile but he appears to be not a witness to the incident as he claimed that in his presence, no incident has occurred. These are the witnesses examined before the Court to prove the case against the accused.
[4] Ms. Megha Chitaliya, learned APP submitted that so far as deposition of first informant is concerned, he has fully supported the first information given by him and deposed to before the Court about the incident and the author of the incident. He has identified the accused before the Court. He has deposed to before the Court about utterances made by the accused, which insults the caste of the first informant, that too, in public place within public view. Not only that, (PW-5) - Page 5 of 11 Uploaded by LALJI AMRUTBHAI DESAI(HC01558) on Fri Jun 27 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Jun 28 01:39:11 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1946/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/06/2025 undefined Hirabhai Chhaganbhai Rathod though has not supported the main case about insult to the caste, accused abused both of them, he has supported the case. Therefore, she has submitted that the deposition of the first informant inspiring confidence, even if other eye-witnesses have turned hostile, accused can be convicted for the offences alleged.
[5] Having heard the learned APP and going through the judgment as also the evidence, let me re-appreciate the evidence led before the Court for determination of this acquittal appeal. [6] As stated hereinabove, 3 panch witnesses out of total 9 witnesses, their deposition has no relevance as panch witness who has supported the case of the prosecution, is a panch to the physical condition of the accused on arrest panchnama. There appears no dispute about the arrest of the accused in connection with the present offence and his physical condition at that time. However, it has nothing to do with the main offence alleged against the him.
[7] Other two panch witnesses are witnesses to the scene of offence panchnama, who have not supported the case of the prosecution but that again is of no consequence as there also Page 6 of 11 Uploaded by LALJI AMRUTBHAI DESAI(HC01558) on Fri Jun 27 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Jun 28 01:39:11 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1946/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/06/2025 undefined appears evidence in respect of alleged offence taking place at Panchayat Office. Coming to the deposition of star witness of the prosecution, being first informant (PW-4) - Chaturbhai Galabhai, who has stated in his examination-in-chief that Surveyors from Dhrangadhra had come to assess damage because of flood in the village, and therefore, he went there to represent about not surveying damage to his house. Therefore, he went to Panchayat Office. He has deposed to before the Court that (PW-6) - Karshanbhai Parshottambhai, Sarpanch of the Village, and (PW-7) - Jagdishbhai Kushalbhai, Talati-cum-Mantri were present in the Panchayat Office. He represented them about the survey of his house. The persons who had come to survey the damage, have refused to survey. At that time, according to witness, accused - Bhurubha assaulted him. He has also uttered certain words insulting about his caste which he deposed to before the Court in the Office i.e. public place within public view. Why accused did that is also known to the accused and not by him. Thereafter, he lodged the complaint which he confirmed the same and content of it is also being confirmed, it was exhibited at Exhibit-13. He identified the accused before the Court. So far as caste certificate is concerned, it is also shown to him and exhibited at Exhibit-14.
Page 7 of 11 Uploaded by LALJI AMRUTBHAI DESAI(HC01558) on Fri Jun 27 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Jun 28 01:39:11 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1946/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/06/2025 undefined [8] However, his cross-examination is most relevant as he is the eye-witness and the victim to the incident and there appears no other evidence to support his assertion. He has admitted in his cross-examination that he and the accused are staying in the very village since their birth. He has further admitted that they know each other even prior to the incident. He has denied the suggestion that prior to the incident, there was no any verbal altercation between them. He is very candid that before the incident, there was verbal altercation with the accused in respect of the boundary of the field, though the said altercation took place before 2-3 years. There was demarcating sign at the boundary which was not found and therefore, altercation took place when it was asked to the first informant by the accused. He has further admitted that for carrying out the work of survey assessing the damage by flood in the village, accused was not entrusted any work. He has further admitted that he received Rs.3,000/- as compensation from Social Welfare Department for filing this complaint. This is the nature of deposition of the first informant before the Court. [9] While assessing his deposition, learned Judge has sought for corroboration as first informant has an axe to grind Page 8 of 11 Uploaded by LALJI AMRUTBHAI DESAI(HC01558) on Fri Jun 27 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Jun 28 01:39:11 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1946/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/06/2025 undefined against the accused. As admitted by him in his cross- examination, field of the accused as also the first informant have common boundary. Prior to incident also, there was one verbal altercation between them in respect of marking at the boundary. Though for that, at the relevant time, no complaint was ever filed, fact remains that they are staying in the same village since their birth having field with common boundary and verbal altercation in respect of the marking of it. Thus, it is clear that when accused was not involved in the work of any survey in the village by the person who had come from Taluka Office for survey of the damage, there is no question of accused rushing to the Panchayat Office and objecting to the survey being carried out of the residence of the first informant. [10] Not only that, Sarpanch of the village as also (PW-7) - Jagdishbhai, who was Talati-cum-Mantri, who was present as per the deposition of the first informant himself when the incident occurred, have not supported the case of the prosecution. That shows that in their presence, as admitted by them in their deposition, no such incident has ever occurred. Karshanbhai being Sarpanch of the village and Jagdishbhai being independent person - Talati-cum-Mantri of that village, Page 9 of 11 Uploaded by LALJI AMRUTBHAI DESAI(HC01558) on Fri Jun 27 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Jun 28 01:39:11 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1946/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/06/2025 undefined has nothing to favour either the accused or the first informant but fact remains that assertion made by the first informant is not supported by deposition of independent office bearer of the Village Panchayat, one as Sarpanch and another as Talati-cum- Mantri. Not only that, so far as main incident part is concerned, the very caste fellow of the first informant - (PW-5) - Hirabhai Chhaganbhai Rathod has also not supported the case of the first informant in respect of assertion made by him in his deposition. Not only that, except accused abused first informant and witness
- Hirabhai Chhaganbhai Rathod, nothing has happened as claimed by him in his examination-in-chief prior to he being declared hostile. He was very candid in his examination-in-chief that at the Panchayat Office someone uttered some words is not known to him as he went out of the Panchayat Office. [11] Considering the relations of the accused and the victim, strained because of the verbal altercation of the boundary at the field, as held by the learned Judge, a possibility cannot be ruled out that a false case in respect of the offence is foisted upon the accused. Though, verbal altercation might have taken place at the Panchayat Office between the accused and the first informant, so far as incident under 'the Atrocities Act' uttering Page 10 of 11 Uploaded by LALJI AMRUTBHAI DESAI(HC01558) on Fri Jun 27 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Jun 28 01:39:11 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1946/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/06/2025 undefined word insulting the caste of the first informant in public place within public view is concerned, there is no corroborative evidence led by the prosecution and therefore, it creates doubt about the proof thereof. Therefore, learned Judge has, while recording an order of acquittal, given benefit of doubt to the accused.
[12] On overall re-appreciation and rereading of the evidence led before the Court, I also see no reason to interfere with the well-reasoned order passed by the learned Judge, giving benefit of doubt so far as alleged offence is concerned. Even if two views are possible, in an acquittal appeal, view favourable to the accused is to be accepted. It cannot be said that any other view is possible except giving benefit of doubt, which has been given by the learned Judge while acquitting accused. [13] In view thereof, the appeal being without any merit, it is hereby dismissed. Record and Proceedings be sent back to the concerned Trial Court, if any.
(UMESH A. TRIVEDI, J.) Lalji Desai Page 11 of 11 Uploaded by LALJI AMRUTBHAI DESAI(HC01558) on Fri Jun 27 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Jun 28 01:39:11 IST 2025