Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Kesharbhai Raghjibhai Patel on 7 October, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/763/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/10/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 763 of 2013
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE S.V. PINTO Sd/-
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
No
==========================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
KESHARBHAI RAGHJIBHAI PATEL & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR. PRANAV DHAGAT, APP for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR D A CHAUDHARI(3264) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1
RULE SERVED for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1,2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE S.V. PINTO
Date : 07/10/2025
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, Palanpur (hereinafter referred to as "the learned Trial Court") in Special (Atrocity) Case No. 49 of 2011 on 30-06-2012, whereby, the learned Trial Court has acquitted the respondent for the offence punishable under Sections 323, 509, 504 and 506(2) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereafter referred to as "IPC" for short) and Section 3(1)(11) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as "Atrocities Act") .
Page 1 of 14 Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Wed Oct 08 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 09 01:36:38 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/763/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/10/2025 undefined 1.1 The respondent is hereinafter referred to as the accused as he 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 On 29-07-2011, at around 9 a.m., the complainant - Meenaben wife of Mohanbhai Becharbhai Senma was returning home, after answering nature's call at village Edrana, Taluka: Vadgam and she met the accused on the road and he winked at her. The complainant -
Meenaben told him to go away and he took his motorcycle and went away. She went home and while she was going to purchase a soap at the shop of Bhalabhai Malabhai Brahman, near the main gate of the village, once again the accused met her, abused her and hurled caste-slurs against her and tried to hold her hand and at that time, the complainant - Meenaben shouted at him and he went away. Her husband - Mohanbhai Becharbhai Senma and brother-in-law - Sureshbhai Veerabhai were at the field and someone telephoned her brother-in-law - Sureshbhai Veerabhai that the accused was harassing her and her husband came to know about the incident. In the afternoon, her brother-in-law - Sureshbhai was going for a shave, at the barber's shop and the complainant assaulted him and Chaturbhai Vaghari intervened and saved him. The complainant filed the complaint at the Chhapi Police Station Page 2 of 14 Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Wed Oct 08 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 09 01:36:38 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/763/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/10/2025 undefined under Section 509, 504, 506(2) 323 of the IPC and Section 3(1)(10) of the Atrocity Act, which came to be registered at Chhapi Police Station II - C.R.No. 3031 of 2011.
2.2 The accused was 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.5 was framed against the accused and the statement of the accused was recorded at Exh. 6, 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 the 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 was recorded, wherein, the accused denied all the evidence of the prosecution on record. The accused refused to step into the witness box or examine witnesses on his behalf and stated that a false case has been filed against him. 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 the accused from all the charges leveled against him.
Page 3 of 14 Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Wed Oct 08 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 09 01:36:38 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/763/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/10/2025 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 respondent. The case has been proved beyond reasonable doubts and the prosecution has successfully established the case against the respondent 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 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, learned advocate Mr. D.A.Chaudhary for the respondent No.1. Though served, the respondent No. 2 did not appear either in person or through an advocate. Perused the impugned judgment and order of acquittal and have re-appreciated the entire evidence of the prosecution on record of the case.
Page 4 of 14 Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Wed Oct 08 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 09 01:36:38 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/763/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/10/2025 undefined
5. Learned APP Mr. Pranav Dhagat 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 Mr. D.A.Chaudhary for the respondent has relied upon the decision of this High Court in the case of State of Gujarat Vs. Balvansinh Jesangbhai Chavda, reported in 2025(0)AIJEL-JC-250240 and submits that the judgment and order has been passed after 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 Page 5 of 14 Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Wed Oct 08 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 09 01:36:38 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/763/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/10/2025 undefined 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 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, re-appreciate 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 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.
Page 6 of 14 Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Wed Oct 08 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 09 01:36:38 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/763/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/10/2025 undefined
(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 on record, to bring home the charge against the accused, the prosecution has examined Prosecution Witness No.1 Dr. Anilkumar Ratnaji Baranda at Exhibit 8 and the witness is the Medical Officer of Community Health Centre (CHC), Vadgam, who was on duty on 31-07- 2011 at around 3.30 pm, when Sureshbhai Veerabhai Senma, a resident of village Edrana, Taluka Vadgam, District Banaskantha had come for treatment with a Yadi of Chhapi Police Station. As per the history, he was assaulted on 29-07-2011, at around 10.00 Hrs. by Page 7 of 14 Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Wed Oct 08 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 09 01:36:38 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/763/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/10/2025 undefined Kesharhai Rajjibhai Patel at the Edrana bus stand and he was beaten with fists and was injured. The patient was conscious, cooperative and well- oriented to time and place and person, and, on examination, he had a healing abrasion 0.5 cm x 0.3 cm in size, on left side of neck, which was reddish with a brown scab and there was mild tenderness on the left middle back region. The injury was likely to be caused by a hard and blunt substance and would take about 3-5 days to recover. The age of injury was about 2-3 days old. The witness has produced the medical certificate of Sureshbhai Veerabhai Senma at Exhibit 10. In the cross- examination, the witness has admitted that Edrana village is near Chhapi and there is a Primary Health Centre at Chhapi. A fresh injury would be reddish and, as per the say of the patient, the injury was caused 2 days ago. A pain would be natural or by a fall and if a blow with a fist is given, no abrasion would occur. The injury sustained by the patient could be sustained, if a person falls on the ground but could not be sustained by fists.
9.1 Prosecution Witness No. 2 Meenaben Mohanbhai Senma examined at Exhibit 12 is the complainant who has supported the contents of the complaint, which is produced at Exhibit 22. The witness has also identified his caste-certificate which is produced at Exhibit 29. The complainant has stated that when her brother-in-law was assaulted by the Page 8 of 14 Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Wed Oct 08 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 09 01:36:38 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/763/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/10/2025 undefined accused - Chaturbhai Waghri and Bikhabhai Nai had intervened and saved her brother-in-law. In the cross-examination, the witness has stated that the name of her father is Mafatlal and he is residing in Mehsana District and not in Banaskantha District. Her caste certificate has to be got from Mehsana District and the caste certificate produced at Exhibit 29 is the caste certificate of Banaskantha District. The witness has stated that her husband's certificate has been lost and she covers her face when she moves about in the village. She did not have any quarrel with the accused earlier and the place, where, the incident occurred is a public road teeming with people. She does not have any relationship with the accused and the incident on 29-07-2011, which occurred at 09:00 am, had occurred while she was alone. She told her brother-in-law - Sureshbhai Veerabhai about the incident and at the time of the incident a number of persons had gathered.
9.2 Prosecution Witness No.3 - Sureshbhai Veerabhai Senma examined at Exhibit 13 is the brother-in-law and injured witness and he has supported the case of the prosecution. In the cross-examination, the witness has stated that there is a pan cabin next to the barber shop and is a public place and at the time of the incident many persons had gathered. He had gone to Patan at 01:00 pm and on 31 st he went to Patan and Chhapi Police Station.
Page 9 of 14 Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Wed Oct 08 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 09 01:36:38 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/763/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/10/2025 undefined 9.3 Prosecution Witness No.4 - Mohanbhai Becharbhai Parmar
examined at Exhibit 15 is the husband of the complainant and is a hearsay witness. In the cross-examination, he has admitted that he did not witness any of the incident but came to know about it from his wife. 9.4 Prosecution Witness No.5 - Chaturbhai Chelabhai Kankodiya examined at Exhibit 16 and Prosecution Witness No. 6 Bhikhabhai Ishwarbhai Nai examined at Exhibit 17 are the eye-witnesses as per the case of the prosecution but both the witnesses have not supported the case of the complainant prosecution and have stated that, no such quarrel had taken place in their presence and they did not intervene and save any person. Both the witnesses have been declared hostile and have been cross-examined at length by the learned APP but nothing to support the case of the prosecution has come on record.
9.5 Prosecution Witness No.7 Mohanbhai Lembabhai Parmar examined at Exhibit 21 is the PSI who has recorded the complaint of the complainant which is produced at Exhibit 22.
9.6 Prosecution Witness No.8 Parthiji Hariji examined at Exhibit 24 is the PSO, who has registered the complaint.
9.7 Prosecution Witness No.9 Neerajkumar Goopchand Badgujar examined at Exhibit 28 is the Investigating Officer, who has narrated in detail the procedure undertaken by him during investigation. In the cross-
Page 10 of 14 Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Wed Oct 08 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 09 01:36:38 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/763/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/10/2025 undefined
examination, the witness has stated that he did not visit the field where the husband of the complainant was working and has produced the caste certificate of the complainant at Exhibit 29.
10. On minute appreciation of the entire evidence of the prosecution, the incident has occurred in three parts on 29-07-2011 at 9 am when the accused is alleged to have winked at the complainant and at that time the complainant was alone. The second incident occurred when the complainant was going to buy soap at the shop of Bhalabhai Malabhai Brahman and the accused met her on the road and at that time, the incident had occurred on the public road but there are no independent witnesses about this incident. The third incident has occurred when the brother-in-law of the complainant Sureshbhai Veerabhai was going to the barber shop and the accused met him and assaulted him with fists and at that time, as per the case of the complainant, Prosecution Witness No. 5 Chaturbhai Chelabhai Kankodiya and Prosecution Witness No. 6 Bhikhabhai Ishwarbhai Nai intervened and saved him. The complaint has been filed on 30-07-2011 by the complainant and there is no explanation regarding the delay in filing of the complaint. If the complaint is perused, there are no derogatory caste abusive words spoken by the accused in public view and the two witnesses Prosecution Witness No. 5 Chaturbhai Chelabhai Kankodiya and Prosecution Witness No. 6 Bhikhabhai Page 11 of 14 Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Wed Oct 08 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 09 01:36:38 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/763/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/10/2025 undefined Ishwarbhai Nai, who, as per the case of the complainant had intervened and saved her brother-in-law, have both turned hostile and have categorically stated that no quarrel had taken place in their presence and they did not intervene to save anyone. As per the complainant and Prosecution Witness No. 3 Sureshbhai Veerabhai Senma the accused assaulted him with fists and he had taken treatment at the Community Health Center, Vadgam but if the medical certificate produced at Exhibit 10 is perused, there was an abrasion, which had a reddish brown scab and the injured witness had gone for treatment on 31-07-2011 at 3.30pm. The incident has occurred on 29-07-2011, for which, the injured had gone for treatment on 31-07-2011 and the medical officer has opined that no abrasion could be caused by a fist. The injury could be sustained by a fall and the say of the injured witness is not supported by any medical evidence. Moreover, it has also come on record that there is a Primary Health Center at Chhapi but the injured witness has gone to the Community Health Center at Vadgam. As per the say of the complainant, many people had gathered at the time of the incident but no independent persons have been examined to prove that the incident had, in fact, taken place. As discussed earlier, two independent witnesses Prosecution Witness No. 5 Chaturbhai Chelabhai Kankodiya and Prosecution Witness No. 6 Bhikhabhai Ishwarbhai Nai have both turned hostile and not Page 12 of 14 Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Wed Oct 08 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 09 01:36:38 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/763/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/10/2025 undefined supported the case of the prosecution and even though many people had gathered. There is no evidence on record to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the incident has occurred. There are major contradictions in the deposition of the complainant, her husband and brother-in-law and it is not clear as to who informed whom about the incident. If the entire evidence is perused, even the caste certificate of the complainant, which is produced at Exhibit 29 is produced from the Social Welfare Office Banaskantha at Palanpur but the complainant has stated that her father is of Mahesana District and her caste certificate has to be produced from Mahesana District. There is no investigation into the caste certificate but the certificate has simply been produced on record by the Investigating Officer and if the entire evidence is perused, there is no evidence that any derogatory caste slurs were used by the accused or that the accused had, in fact, met the complainant and her brother-in-law Sureshbhai Veerabhai at the time of the incident.
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 Page 13 of 14 Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Wed Oct 08 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 09 01:36:38 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/763/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/10/2025 undefined 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 judgment and order of acquittal passed by learned Special Judge, Palanpur in Special (Atrocity) Case No. 49 of 2011 on 30-06-2012, 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 14 of 14 Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Wed Oct 08 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 09 01:36:38 IST 2025