Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Chhatrasing Juthji Devda on 7 October, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/206/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/10/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL (AGAINST ACQUITTAL) NO. 206 of 2015
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE S.V. PINTO Sd/-
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting No
==========================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
CHHATRASING JUTHJI DEVDA & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR. PRANAV DHAGAT, APP for the Appellant(s) No. 1
ARCHANABEN B GOSWAMI(8154) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1
BAILABLE WARRANT SERVED for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No.
1,2,3,4
MR MAHENDRA U VORA(3034) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1
RULE SERVED for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 2,3,4
UNSERVED EXPIRED (R) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 5
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE S.V. PINTO
Date : 07/10/2025
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 Additional Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Deesa (hereinafter referred to as "the learned Trial Court") in Special Case (Atro) No. 53/2011 on 18.11.2014 whereby, the learned Trial Court has acquitted the respondents for Page 1 of 16 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Wed Oct 08 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 09 01:36:32 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/206/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/10/2025 undefined the offence punishable under Sections 504, 506(2) and 114 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 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 - Govabhai Somabhai Makwana and the accused nos. 1 and 2 had agricultural lands in the outskirts of Nainava village, Taluka Dhanera and on 05.04.2011 at around 16.00 hours, while the complainant and witnesses Ramchandra Govabhai Majirana, Kishnabhai Govabhai Majirana and Gagiben wife of Govabhai Majirana were working in their fields, the accused came to the field of the complainant and abused him and hurled derogatory caste slurs against him. A dispute with regard to the fields was going on between the parties as there was a common Page 2 of 16 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Wed Oct 08 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 09 01:36:32 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/206/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/10/2025 undefined boundary between the lands and as the accused had hurled derogatory caste slurs against the complainant, the complainant filed a complaint at the Dhanera Police Station under Sections 504, 506(2) and 114 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 3(1)(10) of the Atrocity Act which came to be registered at Dhanera Police Station II - C.R. No. 3035 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, Dhanera and as the said offences against the accused were exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the case was committed to the Sessions Court, Deesa as per the provisions of Section 209 of Code of Criminal Procedure and the case was registered as Special Case (Atro) No. 53/2011.
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 Page 3 of 16 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Wed Oct 08 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 09 01:36:32 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/206/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/10/2025 undefined provided to the accused as per the provisions of Section 207 of the Code. A charge at Exh. 7 was framed against the accused and the statements of the accused was recorded at Exhs. 8, 9, 10 and 11 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 10 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 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 Page 4 of 16 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Wed Oct 08 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 09 01:36:32 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/206/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/10/2025 undefined 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 Mr. Pranav Dhagat for the appellant State and learned advocate Mr. M.U. Vora for the respondent no. 1. 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 Mr. Pranav Dhagat has taken this Court Page 5 of 16 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Wed Oct 08 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 09 01:36:32 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/206/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/10/2025 undefined 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. Learned advocate Mr. M.U. Vora for the respondent no. 1 has submitted that the learned Trial Court has appreciated the evidence and passed the impugned judgement and order and no interference is required hence, the appeal may 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 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:
Page 6 of 16 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Wed Oct 08 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 09 01:36:32 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/206/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/10/2025 undefined "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".
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', Page 7 of 16 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Wed Oct 08 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 09 01:36:32 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/206/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/10/2025 undefined '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 presumption of innocence in favour of the accused and it has finally culminated when a case ends in an acquittal. The learned Page 8 of 16 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Wed Oct 08 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 09 01:36:32 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/206/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/10/2025 undefined 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. To prove the offence against the accused, the prosecution has in all examined ten witnesses. PW1 - Govabhai Somabhai Makwana examined at Exh. 15 is the complainant who has supported the contents of the complaint which is produced at Exh. 16. In the cross examination, the complainant has stated that there is a hedge between his field and the field of the accused and Regular Civil Suit No. 30 of 2008 is pending before the Civil Court, Dhanera. The complainant sought for a temporary injunction in the matter but it was refused by the learned Trial Court. Survey No. 179 paiki 5 acres and 5 Gunthas Page 9 of 16 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Wed Oct 08 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 09 01:36:32 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/206/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/10/2025 undefined land was sold to Babulal Misrimal by a registered sale deed and a dispute regarding the land was going on between Sanghvi Babulal and the accused. Regular Civil Suit No. 30 of 2008 was filed against the accused before the Dhanera Court and towards the south of his field is the field of Mangabhai and he resides in that field with his family and towards the north is the field of Himmatlal Bhagwandas. 9.1 PW2 - Bhurabhai Arjanbhai examined at Exh. 19 is the panch witness of the panchnama of the place of offence which is produced at Exh. 20. The witness has supported the case of the prosecution.
9.2 PW3 - Mohanbhai Madhabhai examined at Exh. 21 is also the panch witness of the panchnama of the place of offence. The witness has supported the case of the prosecution.
9.3 PW4 - Krishnabhai Govabhai examined at Exh. 29 is an eye witness to the incident and he has supported the case of the prosecution. The witness has stated that all the accused came armed with weapons and the accused no. 1 had a sword, the accused no. 2 had a stick, accused no. 3 Page 10 of 16 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Wed Oct 08 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 09 01:36:32 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/206/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/10/2025 undefined had a stick and the accused no. 4 had an axe and they asked them why they had brought an injunction. They told them that his father knew about the injunction and they abused him and hurled caste slurs against him and threatened to kill him. In the cross-examination, the witness has admitted that there is a thorny fence surrounding the field and at the time of the incident, there was a thorny fence between him and the accused. The witness has admitted that a civil case is pending before the Dhanera Court and his father had applied for an injunction application. The witness has also admitted that the accused did not enter into their field as they left the field and went away.
9.4 PW5 - Ramchandra Govabhai examined at Exh. 38 is the son of the complainant and an eye witness to the incident and in the cross-examination, he has admitted that his father had filed a Civil Suit and had sought for injunction. The witness has also admitted that there is a wire fencing surrounding the field and there is no other entry to the field. The witness has also admitted that after Page 11 of 16 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Wed Oct 08 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 09 01:36:32 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/206/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/10/2025 undefined the Civil Suit was filed they do not have any relation to talk with each other and their relations are not good. 9.5 PW6 - Jabbarsinh Sardarsinh examined at Exh. 39 and PW7 - Tanvarsinh Balwantsinh examined at Exh. 41 are the panch witnesses of the arrest panchnama produced at Exh. 40. The witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution and have been declared hostile. 9.6 PW8 - Gagiben Govabhai examined at Exh. 43 is an eye witness to the incident and wife of the complainant who has fully supported the case of the prosecution. In the cross-examination, the witness has admitted that there is a fence surrounding the field and the way to enter into the field is on the road. Their hut is in the middle of the field and the witness has admitted that there is a case pending before the Dhanera Court and since the case, they do not have good relations and they do not speak to each other. 9.7 PW9 - Samalbhai Ramjibhai Mali examined at Exh. 45 is an independent eye witness as per the case of the prosecution but the witness has not supported the case of the prosecution, and has been declared hostile. Page 12 of 16 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Wed Oct 08 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 09 01:36:32 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/206/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/10/2025 undefined 9.8 PW10 - Bhimjibhai Sakrabhai Ninama examined at Exh. 46 is the Investigating Officer who has narrated the procedure undertaken by him during investigation. During the cross-examination, the witness has admitted that during investigation, it was found that civil disputes were going on between the parties regarding the land before the Dhanera Court and he had gone to the place of incident. He did not record the statements of the neighbouring field owners i.e. Himmatlal or Mangabhai and in the statement of Krishnabhai Govabhai he did not state that the accused had hurled derogatory caste slurs and abused them. Ramchandrabhai Govabhai also did not state that the accused had hurled derogatory caste slurs and at the place of incident, there is thorny fence between the fields of the accused and the field of the complainant. The witness has also admitted that there is Ninava Outpost and a Police Chowki on the road. The witness has produced the caste certificate of the complainant at Exh. 47.
10. On minute appreciation of the entire evidence of the prosecution, the complainant admittedly is not an Page 13 of 16 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Wed Oct 08 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 09 01:36:32 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/206/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/10/2025 undefined eyewitness to the incident, and no independent witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution. PW4 - Krishnabhai Govabhai and PW5 Ramchandrabhai Govabhai are the sons of the complainant and PW8 - Gagiben Govabhai is the wife of the complainant who were present at the time of the incident but there are major contradictions in their depositions. Admittedly, the incident as narrated by the complainant has occurred in the field and it is not in public view and it is also come on record that one Mangabhai was residing with his family in the field which was to the southern portion of the field of the complainant but his evidence has not come on record. It is also on record that there are civil litigations pending between the parties and considering the major contradictions in the depositions of the witnesses, the prosecution has not proved the case beyond reasonable doubts.
11. 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 Page 14 of 16 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Wed Oct 08 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 09 01:36:32 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/206/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/10/2025 undefined 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.
12. The impugned judgement and order of acquittal passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Deesa in Special Case (Atro) No. 53/2011 on 18.11.2014 is hereby confirmed.
Page 15 of 16 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Wed Oct 08 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 09 01:36:32 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/206/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/10/2025 undefined
13. 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 16 of 16 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Wed Oct 08 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 09 01:36:32 IST 2025