Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Navaji Khetaji Mali on 15 May, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/914/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/05/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 914 of 2008
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.N.RAY
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
NAVAJI KHETAJI MALI & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR SOHAM JOSHI for the Appellant(s) No. 1
RULE SERVED for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1,2
RULE SERVED BY DS for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 3
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.N.RAY
Date : 15/05/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Heard learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr.Soham Joshi for the appellant-State. Though served none appears for the Respondents.
3. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr.Soham Joshi has vehemently contended that the learned trial Court has erred in concluding as it did particularly in para 14 of the impugned Page 1 of 6 Uploaded by VARSHA DESAI(HC01393) on Mon May 19 2025 Downloaded on : Mon May 19 23:08:21 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/914/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/05/2025 undefined judgment. The english translation of paragraph 14 of the impugned judgment is quoted herein below for ready reference of this Court:
"On taking the bird's eye-view of the entire evidences produced by the Prosecution, the caste certificate has been produced vide Exh.24 by the Prosecution to prove that the complainant Mohanbhai Hiraji Vaghela belongs to Scheduled Caste and in this way the Prosecution has proved beyond doubt that the complainant belongs to Scheduled Caste. The injuries sustained by the complainant have been proved vide certificate at Exh.10. It is found from the evidence of the Doctor that the injuries sustained by him could heal within 5 to 7 days. But, the evidence at Exh.11 of Injured Person and the Complainant Mohanbhai Hiraji Vaghela and the complaint at Exh.12 lodged by him are the important evidence to indicate as to how far the present accused persons are responsible for the present injuries. Looking to this evidence, it is found that the complainant has stated in the complaint that at the time of the incident when he was tilling the filed, total four persons arrived at their field. He has stated in his evidence that Dahyabhai and Navabhai stated that he was a bhangi and that he should not be in their neighbourhood and that Dahyabhai and one other person caught hold of him. No any fact has been revealed during investigation regarding this second person. The Investigating Officer has produced charge-sheet and no absconding accused is mentioned in column no. 2 of the charge- sheet. It is stated in his evidence that Lerabhai assaulted him by inflicting fist blows on face and chest. But this witness has not stated in the complaint that Lerabhai had assaulted him. However, such fact is dictated in the complaint of Exh.12 that four persons got suddenly provoked and started abusing me using bad-words for mother and sister and used derogatory words for caste and stated that 'sala dedha', you have become hardheaded and that these four persons captured and assaulted him with fists and kicks on face, head, back and abdomen and threw him on ground. In this way, fact is mentioned in the complaint of Exh.12 that he was assaulted by four persons.
When the complaint does not explicitly contain the fact that Laherabhai inflicted fist blows on face and chest, there appears contradiction regarding important fact between the evidence of the Complainant and his complaint at Exh.12. The complainant has admitted that he was ploughing the place of occurrence without any lawful right thereon. Valmaben - wife of the Complainant has also clearly stated that "three to four persons belonging to Mali caste came to their field and told them not to Page 2 of 6 Uploaded by VARSHA DESAI(HC01393) on Mon May 19 2025 Downloaded on : Mon May 19 23:08:21 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/914/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/05/2025 undefined plough the filed and the four persons started quarrel using caste abusive words 'dhedha kanda'." The fact cannot be believed that all the four person together would speak such caste abusive words 'dhedha kanda'. She has stated in her evidence that the hair of her husband were caught and fist blows were given on face after catching his hair and that the complainant and his wife, both of them, four persons had assaulted. But no clear fact has been stated by the witnesses as to which person had assaulted them in what manner. Mohanbhai has stated in his evidence that Lerabhai had assaulted on his face. But no such clear fact is mentioned in his complaint at Exh.12. Therefore, when contradiction is found regarding important issue of the incident in his evidence on oath as well as in the complaint, the evidence of the witnesses requires to be scrutinized. In addition, evidence of Prosecution Witness Arshadmiya Nanamiya Sindhi is produced vide Exh.14. He was the driver of the tractor at the time of the incident. He has stated in his evidence that 3 to 4 persons arrived in the field and these persons had altercation with Mohanbhai; he has not heard as to what altercation took place. As these persons were assaulting Mohanbhai, he stopped the tractor and went to rescue him. The witness has admitted in the cross-examination that he has not heard any word of the altercation that took place between the accused persons and Mohanbhai; moreover, he has not seen as to on which part of body, this Mohanbhai was assaulted. Thus it is found from the above three witnesses that four persons had assaulted them and four persons had used derogatory abusive words. But the tractor driver, who was present at the time of the incident, has not heard any word as to what altercation took place. Moreover, the fact cannot be believed that four persons would speak the same kind of words at the same time. No cogent evidence is produced as to which person uttered what kind of words for Mohanbhai. Further, there appears contradiction between the evidence of both husband and wife regarding the facts of incident. Despite this, looking to the facts of the complaint and evidence on record, allegations are made against four persons and two persons have been arrested during the investigation and charge-sheet has been filed against two persons. There is no clear believable evidence indicating as to what sort of role the present accused persons played individually in the incident. Moreover, the Prosecution has miserably failed to prove that the accused persons uttered insulting words and that such words were uttered so as to dishonour him publically. The Prosecution has also miserably failed to prove that the present two accused persons have caused injuries to this injured person. Therefore, the Prosecution has failed to prove the offence against the accused Page 3 of 6 Uploaded by VARSHA DESAI(HC01393) on Mon May 19 2025 Downloaded on : Mon May 19 23:08:21 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/914/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/05/2025 undefined persons as per the charge framed vide Exh.5. Hence, decision to Issue No. 1 to 5 is given in negative and the following order is passed."
4. However, upon independently perusing the entire evidence on record, I am of the opinion that the crucial witness in the present case is PW.5, Tilaji Madhaji Rabari, who, though stated as the Panchwitness, is incidentally the owner of the neighbouring field where the alleged incident has taken place. The said PW.5 had turned hostile and therefore, in my view the only source of independent corroboration of the incident was removed from the prosecution case. Further, considering the evidence of PW.1 at Exh.8 i.e. Dr.Dineshkumar Daljibhai Metiya, it will be seen that the injuries are of superficial nature where at the highest there are scratch wounds admeasuring 1cm to 1/2cm without depth and on the arm and some swelling on the head as a result of alleged pulling of hair. Taking into account the overall picture as presented in evidence, I am of the opinion that the learned trail Court had rightly appreciated the evidence and came to a plausible conclusion. As held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and by this Court in a Catena of judgment that, when one plausible view has been taken by the trial Court, this Court in appeal will not substitute the said plausible view with another plausible view, particularly when the accused has been acquitted by the learned trial Court.
Page 4 of 6 Uploaded by VARSHA DESAI(HC01393) on Mon May 19 2025 Downloaded on : Mon May 19 23:08:21 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/914/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/05/2025 undefined
5. In the case of Mallappa & others vs. State of Karnataka reported in (2024) 3 SCC 544, it was held as under:
"Our criminal jurisprudence is essentially based on the promise that no innocent shall be condemned as guilty. All the safeguards and the jurisprudential values of criminal law, are intended to prevent any failure of justice. The principles which come into play while deciding an appeal from acquittal could be summarised as:
(i) Appreciation of evidence is the core element of a criminal trial and such appreciation must be comprehensive
- inclusive of all evidence, oral or documentary;
(ii) Partial or selective appreciation of evidence may result in a miscarriage of justice and is in itself a ground of challenge;
(iii) If the court, after appreciation of evidence, finds that two views are possible, the one in favour of the accused shall ordinarily be followed;
(iv) If the view of the trial court is a legally plausible view, mere possibility of a contrary view shall not justify the reversal of acquittal;
(v) If the appellate court is inclined to reverse the acquittal in appeal on a reappreciation of evidence, it must specifically address all the reasons given by the trial court for acquittal and must cover all the facts;
(vi) In a case of reversal from acquittal to conviction, the appellate court must demonstrate an illegality, perversity or error of law or fact in the decision of the trial court."
6. Respectfully following the principle of law laid down in the aforesaid decision, I am of the view that the decision of the trial Court in acquitting the accused person deserve to stand. Page 5 of 6 Uploaded by VARSHA DESAI(HC01393) on Mon May 19 2025 Downloaded on : Mon May 19 23:08:21 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/914/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/05/2025 undefined Resultantly the present appeal is dismissed.
7. Record & proceedings be sent back to the concerned Court forthwith.
(D.N.RAY,J) VARSHA DESAI/KAJAL Page 6 of 6 Uploaded by VARSHA DESAI(HC01393) on Mon May 19 2025 Downloaded on : Mon May 19 23:08:21 IST 2025