Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Bharatbhai Hemabhai Patel on 6 October, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/7/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/10/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 7 of 2013
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE S.V. PINTO Sd/-
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
No
==========================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
BHARATBHAI HEMABHAI PATEL & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS. CHETNA SHAH, APP for the Appellant(s) No. 1
BAILABLE WARRANT SERVED for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 2
MR ANKIT Y BACHANI(5424) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1,3,4,5
MR.JAY S SHAH(7244) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 2
NOTICE UNSERVED for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 6
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE S.V. PINTO
Date : 06/10/2025
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 judgment and order of acquittal passed by learned Special Judge, Patan (hereinafter referred to as "the learned Trial Court") in Special (Atrocity) Case No. 19 of 2012 on 25-09-2012, whereby, the learned Trial Court has acquitted the respondents for the offence punishable under Sections 143, 447, 146, 506(2) and 114 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereafter referred to as Page 1 of 13 Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Wed Oct 08 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 09 00:19:32 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/7/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/10/2025 undefined "IPC" for short) and Section 3(1)(4) (5)(10) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as "Atrocities 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.
1.2 By an order of this Court dated 13-04-2023, the original complainant was joined as a party to the proceeding and a notice was issued through the concerned police station. As per the report of the learned Additional Session Judge, Patan, while serving the notice to the complainant by the Patan City "A" Division Police Station, it was found that the complainant was not present at that time but they found his mother - Kesarben Kanaiyalal Bhil and her statement has been recorded wherein, she has stated that her son had gone to attend a wedding and was not present but she would intimate him about the pendency of the proceedings before this Court. The statement of Hardikkumar Laxmanbhai Prajapati, a neighbour of the complainant has also been recorded and he too has stated that the complainant has gone for a wedding and he would inform him about the pendency of the proceedings before the High Court. The statements have been sent along with the report of ASI, Patan City "A" Division Police Station through the learned Page 2 of 13 Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Wed Oct 08 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 09 00:19:32 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/7/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/10/2025 undefined Additional Session Judge, Patan and even though the respondent No. 5 - Original Complainant has been duly served and the pendency of the proceedings before this Court is well within his knowledge, he has not appeared either in person or through an advocate to make any submissions
2. The brief facts that emerge from the record of the case are as under:-
2.1 The complainant - Mukeshkumar Kanaiyalal Bhil, a resident of Patan, was the owner of Survey No. 868/1 Paiki 2, situated in Patan and on 5-11-2011 at around 9.30 am, the accused illegally trespassed into the land and when the complainant asked them why they had entered into the land, they told him that the land was purchased by Bharatbhai Gandabhai Rawal and threatened to break his hands and legs. The complainant went away and thereafter once again at 17.00 Hrs. when the complainant went to the land, the accused No. 2 told him that he had purchased the land and threatened to kill him and all the accused tried to assault him. Witness Vipulkumar Dalpatram Thakkar intervened and as the accused had formed an unlawful assembly and hurled caste-slurs against the complainant and threatened to kill him, the complainant - Mukeshkumar Kanaiyalal Bhil filed a complaint at the Patan City "A" Division Police Station under Sections 143, 447, 146 and 506(2) of the IPC and Section 3 Page 3 of 13 Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Wed Oct 08 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 09 00:19:32 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/7/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/10/2025 undefined (1)(10) of the Atrocity Act, which came to be registered as Patan City "A" Division Police Station I -C.R.No.128 of 2007.
2.2 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 necessary papers were provided to the accused as per the provisions of Section 207 of the Code. A charge at Exh.4 was framed against the accused and the statements of the accused were recorded at Exhs. 5 to 8 respectively, wherein, the accused denied all the contents of the charge and the entire evidence of the prosecution was taken on record. 2.3 The prosecution produced oral and documentary evidences to bring home charge against the accused 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 were recorded, wherein, the accused denied all the evidence of the prosecution on record, but produced the record of Criminal Case No. 36 of 2012. 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.
Page 4 of 13 Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Wed Oct 08 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 09 00:19:32 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/7/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/10/2025 undefined
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 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 has been proved beyond reasonable doubts 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 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, learned and advocate Mr Ankit Y. Bachani for the respondent Nos. 1, 3 to 5 and learned advocate Mr. Jay Shah for the respondent No. 2. Though served, the respondent No. 6 did not appear either in person or through an advocate. Perused the impugned judgement and order of acquittal and have re-appreciated the entire evidence of the prosecution on record of the case.
Page 5 of 13 Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Wed Oct 08 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 09 00:19:32 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/7/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/10/2025 undefined
5. Learned APP Ms. Chetna Shah for the appellant-State has taken this Court through the entire evidence of the prosecution on record of the case and has 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. 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 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 learned advocate Mr. Ankti Y Bachani for the respondent Nos. 1, 3 to 5 and learned advocate Mr. Jay S Shah for the respondent No. 2 have jointly submitted that the judgment and order has been passed after due 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) Page 6 of 13 Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Wed Oct 08 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 09 00:19:32 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/7/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/10/2025 undefined 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;
(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 iTimes New Romann 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 Page 7 of 13 Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Wed Oct 08 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 09 00:19:32 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/7/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/10/2025 undefined 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 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, Prosecution Witness No.1 Mukeshkumar Kanaiyalal Bhil has been examined examined at Exhibit 17 is the complainant, who has supported the contents of the complaint, which is produced at Exhibit 18.
Page 8 of 13 Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Wed Oct 08 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 09 00:19:32 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/7/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/10/2025 undefined
During the cross-examination by the learned advocate for the accused, the witness has stated that, in the complaint produced at Exhibit 18, which is filed on 20-11-2011, there is no mention about the date and time of the incident. The complainant has also admitted that the accused No. 2 had entered into an agreement to purchase Survey No. 868 / paiki 1 / paiki 2 with his family members.
9.1 Prosecution Witness No.2 Desai Gehmerbhai Hirabhai examined at Exhibit 19 is the PSO who has registered the complaint. 9.2 Prosecution Witness No.3 Vipulkumar Dalpatram Thakkar examined at Exhibit 23 is an eyewitness to the incident as per the case of the prosecution. The witness has stated that the incident has occurred on 5-11-2011 and the complainant came to him and asked him to accompany him to his field. They went between 09:00 am and 9.30 am to the field and they saw the accused sitting in the field. The complainant asked them why they were sitting in the field and he was informed that the land was purchased by Bharatbhai Gandabhai Rawal and it belonged to him and they told him to come in the evening when the owner would come. In the evening once-again they went to the field and at that time all the five accused were present and they ran to assault them. They hurled caste- slurs, abused them and threatened to kill them. Both of them returned home and thereafter the complainant filed the complaint. In the cross Page 9 of 13 Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Wed Oct 08 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 09 00:19:32 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/7/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/10/2025 undefined examination, the witness has stated, in his statement, before the police, that he has not stated that the incident has occurred on 5-11-2011 and he had earlier signed the panchnama in a case filed between the parties. He is a friend of the complainant Mukeshbhai and he and his brother are land agents.
9.3 Prosecution Witness No.4 Arvindbhai Ishwarbhai Patel examined at Exhibit 24 was working as the Deputy Mamlatdar in the Mamlatdar Office of the Executive Magistrate and he has produced the caste certificate of the complainant at Exhibit 25.
9.4 Prosecution Witness No.5 Mahendrasinh Jalamsinh Parmar examined at Exhibit 26 is the Investigating Officer, who has narrated the procedure undertaken by him during investigation. 9.5 Prosecution Witness No.6 Omkarnath Shivbahadur Tiwari examined at Exhibit 28 is the PSI, who has recorded the complaint of the complainant.
9.6 Prosecution Witness No.7 Kishoresinh Gagubha Vaghela examined at Exhibit 32 is the Investigating Officer, who has narrated the entire procedure undertaken by him during investigation. In the cross examination, the witness has stated that he had received the application dated 6-11-2011 along with the FIR and, in the complaint, the complainant had named only one person and seven others and he had Page 10 of 13 Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Wed Oct 08 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 09 00:19:32 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/7/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/10/2025 undefined stated that he could recognize them. In the application, it was stated that on 5-11-2011 at around 9 am, seven persons were present and, in the complaint, it was not mentioned that the accused had hurled any caste- slurs against them. The application is produced on record at Exhibit 34.
10. On minute appreciation of the entire evidence of the prosecution, as per the case of the complainant, the incident has occurred on 5-11- 2011 and an application was given by the complainant to file a complaint against the accused No. 2 and seven others, wherein, the incident is alleged to have occurred on 5-11-2011 at 09:00 am. The application has been given on 6-11- 2011, and, thereafter, the complaint has been filed on 20-11-2011, wherein, the complainant has named all the accused and has stated that in the morning four persons were present and in the evening five persons were present. Moreover, the caste-slurs alleged to have been uttered by the accused are different in the complaint, and, in the application, and there is no evidence on record as to how the complainant could identify the all the accused. In the evidence on record, it has emerged that there was an agreement to sell the land executed by the family members of the complainant, which was not liked by the complainant and the complainant has not specifically narrated as to who had uttered what words. The initial application, which is given at Exhibit 34 by the complainant on 6-11-2011 does not mention that any caste-slurs Page 11 of 13 Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Wed Oct 08 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 09 00:19:32 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/7/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/10/2025 undefined were used by the accused at the time of the incident. The independent witness Prosecution Witness No. 3 Vipulkumar stated Talpatram Thakkar stated that he was a friend of the complainant and was interested in the land, as he has admitted that, he was an agent of land and there is no iota of evidence that the accused were present at the spot and they had hurled any caste-slurs against the complainant. Even otherwise, the incident, as per the say of the complainant, has occurred at a place, which is not in public view, and hence the ingredients of the Atrocity act are not attracted.
11. In view of the settled position of law in 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 Page 12 of 13 Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Wed Oct 08 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 09 00:19:32 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/7/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/10/2025 undefined and the present appeal is devoid of merits and resultantly, the same is dismissed.
12. The impugned judgment and order of acquittal passed by learned Special Judge, Patan in Special (Atrocity) Case No. 19 of 2012 on 25-09- 2012, 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 13 of 13 Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Wed Oct 08 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 09 00:19:32 IST 2025