Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Mansinhbhai Ramabhai Chaudhary on 6 October, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1557/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/10/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1557 of 2012
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE S.V. PINTO Sd/-
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting No
==========================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
MANSINHBHAI RAMABHAI CHAUDHARY & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS. C.M. SHAH, APP for the Appellant(s) No. 1
BAILABLE WARRANT SERVED for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1,2
NOTICE SERVED for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 3
RULE SERVED for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1,2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE S.V. PINTO
Date : 06/10/2025
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, Patan (hereinafter referred to as "the learned Trial Court") in Special Case (Atro) No. 31/2011 on 30.06.2012 whereby, the learned Trial Court has acquitted the respondents for the offence punishable under Section 506(2) read with Section 114 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 Page 1 of 14 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Wed Oct 08 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 09 00:19:28 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1557/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/10/2025 undefined and Sections 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 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 - Harshadbhai Aalabhai Chamar was running a ration shop in Odhav village in Patan, Taluka & District Patan and on 21.03.2011, at around 07.00 pm, he and his son Anilkumar closed the ration shop and were going towards the house of his younger brother. When they reached near Ramapeer Temple, they met Chenaji Ravjiji Thakor and they were standing and talking to him and at that time, the accused no. 1 came and asked him why he was not giving him kerosene. The complainant told him that as he was having a gas connection, he was not eligible for kerosene but he was taking sugar and wheat and the accused no. 1 started abusing the complainant and hurled Page 2 of 14 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Wed Oct 08 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 09 00:19:28 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1557/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/10/2025 undefined derogatory caste slurs against him. The accused no. 1 came and he too hurled caste slurs against the complainant and threatened that the ration shop would be closed. His son Anil and Thakor Chenaji Ravjiji intervened and separated them and they went towards their house. The complainant -
Harshadbhai Aalabhai Chamar filed a complaint at Patan Taluka Police Station under Sections 504 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 3(1)(10) of the Atrocity Act which came to be registered at Patan Taluka Police Station II - C.R. No. 30 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, Patan and as the said offences against the accused were exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the case was committed to the Sessions Court, Patan as per the provisions of Section 209 of Code of Criminal Procedure and the case was registered as Special Case (Atro) No. 31/2011.
Page 3 of 14 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Wed Oct 08 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 09 00:19:28 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1557/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/10/2025 undefined 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. 10 was framed against the accused and the statements of the accused was recorded at Exhs. 11 and 12 respectively, 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 6 witnesses and produced 6 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. 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 Page 4 of 14 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Wed Oct 08 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 09 00:19:28 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1557/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/10/2025 undefined 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 the cross-examination, nothing adverse has been elicited in favor 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 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. Though bailable warrants have been served, the respondent nos. 1 and 2 have not appeared either in person or through an advocate. Perused the impugned judgement Page 5 of 14 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Wed Oct 08 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 09 00:19:28 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1557/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/10/2025 undefined and order of acquittal and have reappreciated the entire evidence of the prosecution on record of the case.
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.
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:
"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 Page 6 of 14 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Wed Oct 08 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 09 00:19:28 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1557/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/10/2025 undefined 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', '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 Page 7 of 14 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Wed Oct 08 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 09 00:19:28 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1557/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/10/2025 undefined 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 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 Page 8 of 14 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Wed Oct 08 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 09 00:19:28 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1557/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/10/2025 undefined 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. To prove the offence against the accused, the prosecution has in all examined six witnesses. PW1 - Chamar Harshadbhai Aalabhai examined at Exh. 18 is the complainant who has supported the facts of the complaint which is produced at Exh. 19. The witness has also produced his caste certificate at Exh. 20. In the cross- examination, the witness has admitted that the road to go to the Harijanwas and the road to go to Ramapeer Temple are located away from the village and far from each other. The complainant has admitted that the accused had filed an application against him and he had to give surety in the police.
8.1 PW2 - Chamar Anilkumar Harshadbhai examined at Exh. 21 is the son of the complainant and an eyewitness to Page 9 of 14 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Wed Oct 08 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 09 00:19:28 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1557/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/10/2025 undefined the incident and he has supported the case of the prosecution. In the cross-examination, the witness has stated that the place of incident is a public road and is teeming with people who go to the field and return and person of all caste pass through that road. 8.2 PW3 - Thakor Chenaji Ravji examined at Exh. 22 is the eyewitness to the incident and has supported the case of the prosecution. In the cross-examination, the witness has stated that he has good relations with the complainant as he has a ration shop and the place near Ramapeer Temple is a place where a number of people pass by. 8.3 PW4 - Parmar Amratbhai Kamshibhai examined at Exh. 23 is the panch witness of the panchnama of the place of offence which is produced at Exh. 24. The witness has supported the case of the prosecution. 8.4 PW5 - Vaghri Babubhai Sampatbhai examined at Exh. 25 is the PSO who has registered the complaint. The witness has produced the depute order at Exh. 26, wireless message at Exh. 27 and an order of the Superintendent of Police at Exh. 28. In the cross-examination, the witness has Page 10 of 14 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Wed Oct 08 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 09 00:19:28 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1557/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/10/2025 undefined stated that the complainant had come to the Police Station on 23.03.2011 at 12.20 hours and he had taken down the complaint of the complainant as per the say of the complainant. His son Anil had accompanied him to the Police Station and they both sat together while the complaint was being recorded.
8.5 PW6 - K.G. Vaghela examined at Exh. 29 is the Investigating Officer who has narrated the procedure undertaken by him during investigation.
9. On minute appreciation of the entire evidence of the prosecution, it is on record that the accused had filed an application about irregularities by the complainant in running the ration shop for which a police inquiry had taken place and the complainant had to give surety. If the record is perused, the incident as stated by the complainant has occurred on 21.03.2011 but the complaint has been filed on 23.03.2011. If the panchnama of the place of incident is produced, it is the road where there is a tree and about 50 feet away from the shop of the complainant. The Ramapeer Temple is at a distance of Page 11 of 14 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Wed Oct 08 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 09 00:19:28 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1557/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/10/2025 undefined about 10 feet away, about 20 feet away is the pan stall of Babubhai Ratnabai Parmar and on the north is the field of Ranchhodbhai Dajabai Chaudhary. Admittedly, the place is used by people of different castes and at the time of the incident there were other people but no independent witnesses have been examined before the learned Trial Court. The witnesses that have been examined are the son and friend of the complainant and their evidence has to be minutely appreciated but there does not appear to be any evidence regarding the presence of the accused at the time of the incident at the place as stated by the complainant. Moreover, the caste certificate of the complainant has been produced on record at Exh. 20 but no investigation in this regard has been done by the Investigating Officer and there is no cogent and convincing evidence that the complainant was a member of the Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe and at the time of the incident the accused did meet the complainant and derogatory hurled caste slurs against him and threatened him.
Page 12 of 14 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Wed Oct 08 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 09 00:19:28 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1557/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/10/2025 undefined
10. In view of the settled position of law, 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.
11. The impugned judgement and order of acquittal passed by the learned Special Judge, Patan in Special Case (Atro) No. 31/2011 on 30.06.2012 is hereby confirmed. Page 13 of 14 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Wed Oct 08 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 09 00:19:28 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1557/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/10/2025 undefined
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 14 of 14 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Wed Oct 08 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 09 00:19:28 IST 2025