Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Ganeshbhai Motibhai Bareea on 9 September, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1022/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/09/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1022 of 2012
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE S.V. PINTO Sd/-
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
No
==========================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
GANESHBHAI MOTIBHAI BAREEA & ORS.
================================================================
Appearance:
MS. CHETNA SHAH, APP for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR AMIT N CHAUDHARY(5599) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No.
2,3,4,5,6
PETITION DISPOSED OF for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1
RULE SERVED for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 2,3,4,5,6,7
===============================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE S.V. PINTO
Date : 09/09/2025
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 judgement and order of acquittal passed by learned Special Judge & Additional Sessions Judge, Bharuch (hereinafter referred to as "the learned Trial Court") in Special (Atrocity) Case No. 35 of 2011 on 26- 03-2012, whereby, the learned Trial Court has acquitted the respondents for the offence punishable under Sections 323, 324, 504, and 114 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereafter referred to as "IPC" for short) and Page 1 of 16 Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Fri Sep 19 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 20 02:12:50 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1022/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/09/2025 undefined Section Section 3(1)(10) of the Scheduled Caste 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.
2. The brief facts that emerge from the record of the case are as under:-
2.1 On 24-06-2011, at around 20:.00 hours, the accused Nos. 1 to 3 were teasing Sandhyaben Vasava - the niece of the complainant Leelaben Ambalal Vasava at Kelod village and Ambalal Mathurbhai Vasava - the husband of the complainant Leelaben went to scold them for the same and at that time, the accused No. 1 took a stick and gavea blow with the stick on the head of Ambalal. The accused No. 2 took a knife from his pocket and tried to assault Ambalal but as he raised his right hand, he got injured on the fingers. The accused No. 3 bit Ambalal on his back and at that time, niece Sandhya and nephew Kiran came and intervened and released Ambalal from further beatings. The accused Nos. 4, 5 and 6 also came to the spot and assaulted Sandhyaben and the 108 ambulance was called and Ambalal was taken for treatment to the Civil Hospital at Bharuch. The complainant filed the complaint at the Bharuch Taluka Page 2 of 16 Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Fri Sep 19 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 20 02:12:50 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1022/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/09/2025 undefined Police Station under Sections 323, 324, 504 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as the IPC) and Section 3(1)(10) of the Scheduled Casts and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocity) Act,1889 (hereinafter referred to as the Atrocities Act), which came to be registered at Bharuch Taluka Police Station vide I-C.R.No. 55 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 Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bharuch and as the said offences against the accused was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the case was committed to the Sessions Court, Bharuch as per the provisions of Section 209 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the case was registered Special (Atrocities) Case No. 35 of 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 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 Exh.5 to Exh.10 respectively, wherein, the accused denied all the contents of the charge and the entire evidence of the prosecution was taken on record.
Page 3 of 16 Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Fri Sep 19 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 20 02:12:50 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1022/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/09/2025 undefined 2.4 The prosecution produced fourteen oral and twelve documentary evidences to bring home, the charge against the accused and after the learned Additional Public Prosecutor filed the closing pursis at Exh. 38 , 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. 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.
3. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said judgement and order of acquittal, the appellant - State has filed the present appeal mainly stating that the impugned judgement 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 Page 4 of 16 Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Fri Sep 19 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 20 02:12:50 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1022/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/09/2025 undefined judgement 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 and learned advocate Mr. Amit N. Chaudhary appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 to 6. Perused the impugned judgment and order of acquittal and have re-appreciated the entire evidence of the prosecution on record of the case.
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 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. That 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 Page 5 of 16 Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Fri Sep 19 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 20 02:12:50 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1022/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/09/2025 undefined required to be quashed and set aside and the appeal of the appellant must be allowed.
6. Learned advocate Mr. Amit N. Chaudhary appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 to 6 submits that the judgments 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 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, reappreciate and reconsider the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded; (2) The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 puts no Page 6 of 16 Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Fri Sep 19 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 20 02:12:50 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1022/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/09/2025 undefined 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 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 Page 7 of 16 Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Fri Sep 19 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 20 02:12:50 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1022/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/09/2025 undefined 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 of the above settled principles of law, the evidence on record of the case is appreciated and the prosecution has examined Prosecution Witness No. 1 - Dr. Vijaykumar Vandarsinh Parmar at Exhibit 11 and the witness is the Medical Officer, who was on duty at General Hospital, Bharuch on 24-06-2011 at around 9.20 hours when Ambalal Mathurbhai Vasava was brought for treatment. In the history, he had stated that he was assaulted by Ganeshbhai Motibhai Baria, Kamleshbhai Shantilal Baria, Arvind Bhanabhai Vasava, Natu Soma, Ragini Motibhai, Jashodaben Shantilal, Madhviben Ganeshbhai with a knife and sticks and he was assaulted on the head on 24-06-2011 at around 20.00 hours. On examination, there was an injury about 1 cm x 0.5 cm deep on the right little finger, a 3 cm long abrasion on the stomach at the right side and a swelling of about 2 cm on the center parietal region. The patient was admitted as an indoor patient and as per the opinion of the Medical Officer, the injury on the right little finger was due to a sharp cutting object and the injury Nos. 2 and 3 were possible due to hard and blunt substance. The witness has produced the medical certificate at Exhibit 12 and the medical papers at Exhibit 13. Page 8 of 16 Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Fri Sep 19 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 20 02:12:50 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1022/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/09/2025 undefined During the cross examination by the learned advocate for the accused, the witness has stated that in the medical papers, it is written iron rod and then it is cancelled and stick is written, but no initials are at that place. The patient had come without a police yadi and on the injury on the head was only a swelling. The injury No. 3 was an abrasion, which was possible due to any blunt substance and besides these injuries, there were no other injury on the body of the patient. No x-ray for the injury on the head was taken and the witness has stated that he could not say when the patient was discharged.
9.1] Prosecution Witness No. 2 Sureshbhai Kanjibhai examined at Exhibit 15 and Prosecution Witness No. 3 Kantibhai Vechanbhai Vasava examined at Exhibit 17 are the panch-witnesses of the panchnama of the place of offence, which is produced at Exhibit 16. Both the witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution. 9.2] Prosecution Witness No. 4 Dharmendrabhai Shanubhai Patel examined at Exhibit 18 and Prosecution Witness No. 5 Sanjaybhai Mohanbhai Patel examined at Exhibit 20 are the panchwitnesses of the arrest panchnama produced at Exhibit 19. Both the witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution and have been declared. Page 9 of 16 Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Fri Sep 19 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 20 02:12:50 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1022/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/09/2025 undefined 9.3] Prosecution Witness No. 6 - Leelaben Ambalal Vasava examined at Exhibit 21 is the complainant and she has narrated the contents of the complaint produced at Exhibit 22.
During the cross-examination by the learned advocate for the accused, the witness has stated that, in the complaint, she did not state that the accused No. 3 had assaulted her husband with a stick and she did not have an occasion to meet the accused Nos. 4 to 6 earlier. The complaint was filed at the Kasak Police Station and thereafter they had gone to the hospital. Kamlaben Ranchhodbhai Vasava is her neighbour and there is a road to go into the street. Javed Yusufbhai Diwan is also her neighbour and a number of persons had gathered at the time of the incident as she had shouted for help. Her niece Sandhya had come to their place as a guest and she was sitting in the cabin in front of their house to sell goods.
9.4] Prosecution Witness No. 7 - Sandhyaben Ramanbhai examined at Exhibit 23 is the niece of the complainant and she has stated that the accused No. 1 had assaulted her uncle with a stick, the accused No. 3 had assaulted her uncle with a knife and the accused Nos. 4 to 6 had assaulted her with fists. The accused were abusing and besides abuses they did not say anything. The witness has not supported the case Page 10 of 16 Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Fri Sep 19 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 20 02:12:50 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1022/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/09/2025 undefined of the prosecution and has been declared hostile and during the cross- examination, she has stated that she had come to the house of her uncle for a few days as a guest but had never met the accused earlier. No test identification parade was conducted by the Investigating Officer and when her statement was recorded by the Investigating Officer, her aunt Leelaben and her cousin Kiranbhai were present. In her statement before the police, she did not state that the accused No. 3 had assaulted her uncle with a knife and at the time when the accused Nos. 1, 2 and 3 were teasing her, her uncle was not present. After her uncle was assaulted he fell unconscious and could not speak anything. 9.5] Prosecution Witness No. 8 - Kiranbhai Ranchodbhai Vasava examined at Exhibit 24 is the nephew of the complainant and he has supported the case of the prosecution but during the cross-examination, he has admitted that he was working at a petrol-pump and his duty hours were from 08:00 am to 07:00 pm. He had gone to purchase milk and when he came out of the house, his uncle was shouting and a number of persons had gathered in the street. The witness has stated that about 20 to 25 persons had gathered and when he reached the place his uncle was injured on the head and he was bleeding and his clothes were stained with blood and there was blood on the floor also. The witness has also admitted that he has never met the accused earlier and no test Page 11 of 16 Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Fri Sep 19 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 20 02:12:50 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1022/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/09/2025 undefined identification parade was conducted by the Investigating Officer. 9.6] Prosecution Witness No. 9 - Kamlaben Ranchhodbhai Vasava examined at Exhibit 25. The witness is the sister-in-law of the complainant and an eyewitness to the incident and she has stated that at the time of the incident, she was watching TV in her house and she found that there was a lot of commotion going on outside and she went near the door and saw the accused Nos. 1, 2 and 3 assaulting her brother-in-law Ambalal. The accused No. 2 had assaulted him with a knife and the accused No. 1 had given a stick blow on the head of Ambalal and the accused No. 3 had bit Ambalal on the back. They went away and thereafter the accused Nos. 4, 5 and 6 came and assaulted her niece Sandhya and abused her and they were taken to the government hospital at Bharuch.
9.7] Prosecution Witness No. 10 - Ambalal Mathurbhai Vasava examined at Exhibit 26 is the injured witness, who has supported the case of the prosecution.
During the cross-examination by the learned advocate forthe accused, the witness has stated that he has never met the accused earlier and his elder brother Ranchhodbhai is a policeman in the Amod Police Station. On the day of the incident, he had gone to Dayadra with his Page 12 of 16 Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Fri Sep 19 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 20 02:12:50 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1022/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/09/2025 undefined scooter, which is at a distance of about 4 to 5 kilometres and had returned at around 7.30 pm. His niece Sandhya had informed him about the teasing and the whole incident went on for about one hour. After he was injured, he was bleeding and he could not speak and all his clothes were also stained with blood and there was blood on the ground also. At the time of the incident about 25 to 30 persons of his street had gathered. 9.8] Prosecution Witness No. 11 - Hiralal Vestabhai examined at Exhibit 28 is the PSO, who has registered the complaint and has produced the extract of the Station Diary at Exhibit 31. 9.9] Prosecution Witness No. 12 - Nareshkumar J. Mehta examined at Exhibit 32 is the ASI, who has recorded the complaint of the complainant which is produced at Exhibit 22.
9.11] Prosecution Witness No. 13 - Allarakha Fakir Muhammad Mansuri examined at Exhibit 34 was working as a Clerk at the Social Welfare Office, Bharuch and he has produced the caste certificate of the complainant at Exhibit 27.
During the cross examination by the learned advocate for the accused, the witness has stated that he does not know who had issued the certificate and does not know on what basis the caste of the complainant is written in the certificate.
Page 13 of 16 Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Fri Sep 19 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 20 02:12:50 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1022/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/09/2025 undefined 9.12] Prosecution Witness No. 14 Nareshbhai Ambalal Munia examined at Exhibit 36 is the Investigating Officer, who has narrated in detail the procedure undertaken by him during investigation.
During the cross examination by the learned advocate for the accused, the witness has stated that he did not get the caste certificate of the complainant during investigation and the accused No. 3 is also from the Vasava community and cannot be prosecuted under the Atrocity Act. The witness has admitted that the charge-sheet has wrongly been filed against the accused No. 3 and he has not investigated about the caste of the other accused. No test identification of the accused was conducted and the statements of all the witnesses were taken on the same day. During investigation, no blood stained clothes of the injured were seized and the injured did not show him any clothes that was stained with blood and no samples of blood was collected for investigation. The witness has also admitted that during investigation, it was not found that any blood was found on the floor.
10] On minute perusal of the entire evidence of the prosecution there are major contradictions in the deposition of the complainant Prosecution Witness No. 6 Leelaben Ambalal Vasava, Prosecution Witness No. 7 Sandhyaben Ramanbhai, Prosecution Witness No. 8 Page 14 of 16 Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Fri Sep 19 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 20 02:12:50 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1022/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/09/2025 undefined Kiranbhai Ranchhodbhai and Prosecution Witness No. 10 Ambalal Mathurbhai Vasava. The genesis of the incident is the teasing of Sandhyaben by the accused but there is no iota of evidence that any such teasing had taken place and how and in what manner did the accused tease Sandhyaben. Prosecution Witness No. 8 Kiranbhai Ranchhodbhai Vasava is not an eyewitness to the incident and the witnesses have categorically stated that no caste-slurs were hurled by anyone at the time of the incident. In the evidence of the prosecution, Prosecution Witness No. 9 Kamlaben Ranchhodbhai Vasava has stated that the incident has occurred in two parts and the accused Nos. 1, 2 and 3 went away after assaulting Ambalal Mathurbhai Vasava and thereafter the accused Nos. 4, 5 and 6 came and assaulted Sandhyaben but no such evidence has come on record and it appears to be an exaggeration in the deposition of the witnesses.
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 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 Page 15 of 16 Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Fri Sep 19 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 20 02:12:50 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1022/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/09/2025 undefined 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 learned Special & Additional Sessions Judge, Bharuch in Special (Atrocity) Case No. 35 of 2011 on 26-03-2012, 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 16 of 16 Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Fri Sep 19 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 20 02:12:50 IST 2025