Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Shankarbhai @ Popat Ganpatbhaimarwadi ... on 10 September, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1079/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1079 of 2011
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE S.V. PINTO Sd/-
========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
√
========================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
SHANKARBHAI @ POPAT GANPATBHAIMARWADI BHATI & ANR.
========================================================
Appearance:
MS.C.M.SHAH, APP for the Appellant(s) No. 1
BAILABLE WARRANT SERVED for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1
NOTICE UNSERVED for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 2
RULE SERVED for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1
========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE S.V. PINTO
Date : 10/09/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant - State under Section 378(1)(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') against the judgment and the order passed by the learned Special Judge, City Civil & Special Judge, Ahmedabad (hereinafter referred to as 'the Page 1 of 14 Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Fri Sep 19 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 20 02:54:55 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1079/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025 undefined learned Trial Court') in Special Case ( Atro) No. 22 of 2010 dated 25.01.2011, whereby, the learned Trial Court has acquitted the respondent - accused from the offences punishable under Sections 323, 294(b) and 506(2) of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as 'the IPC') and Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Atrocities Act').
1.1. The respondent is hereinafter referred to as 'the accused' as he stood in the rank and file in the original case, for the sake of convenience, clarity and brevity.
2. The relevant facts leading to filing of the present appeal are as under:
2.1. On 28.06.2007, at around 5.30pm, the accused came to the house of the complainant Maheshbhai Babubhai Vaadodara and started abusing Vasantben, the wife of the complainant Maheshbhai Vaadodara as earlier there was a quarrel between them. The accused hurled caste slurs and Page 2 of 14 Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Fri Sep 19 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 20 02:54:55 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1079/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025 undefined slapped the complainant and threatened to kill the complainant, if he did not withdraw the complaints that he had filed earlier.
The complainant Maheshbhai Babubhai Vaadodara filed the complaint at the Kagadapith Police Station under Section 323, 294(B), 506(2) of the IPC and Section 3(i)(x) of the Atrocities Act, which came to be registered at Kagadapith Police Station, II- C.R.No.3328 of 2007.
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 police papers were provided to the accused as per the provisions of Section 207 of the Code and a charge was framed by the learned Trial Court at Exh.2 and the statement of the accused was recorded at Exh.3, wherein, the accused denied all the contents of the charge and the entire evidence of the prosecution was taken on record. The prosecution produced oral and documentary evidences in support of the case.
3.3. After the closing pursis was submitted by the learned APP, the further statement of the accused under Section 313 of Page 3 of 14 Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Fri Sep 19 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 20 02:54:55 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1079/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025 undefined the Code was recorded. After hearing the arguments of the learned APP and learned advocate for the accused and after perusing the documents on record, the learned Trial Court, by the impugned judgment and order, acquitted the accused.
4. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Trial Court, the appellant - State has filed the present appeal mainly stating that the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Trial Court is contrary to law, evidence on record and principles of justice. The learned Trial Court has not considered the direct or indirect evidence produced in this case connecting the accused with the crime and has also not appreciated the oral as well as documentary evidence on record and has straightway arrived at the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubts. The learned Trial Court has erred in apperciating the seriousness and the gravity of the offences and should not have adopted a casual, callous and routine approach. That the reasons given by the learned Trial Court appreciating the evidence and while acquitting the accused, are not proper Page 4 of 14 Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Fri Sep 19 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 20 02:54:55 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1079/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025 undefined and are perverse and bad in law, and hence, the impugned judgment and order deserves to be quashed and set aside.
5. Heard learned APP Ms.C.M.Shah for the appellant - State. The respondent no.2 - original complainant has remained unserved, as per the report of the Kagadapith Police Station forwaded by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ahmedabad dated 04.02.2025 and as per the report of the Police Inspector, Kagadapith Police Station dated 10.09.2025, the original complainant is not residing at the place mentioned in the cause title. Perused the impugned judgment and order of acquittal and have re-appreciated the entire evidence of the prosecution on record of the case.
6. Learned APP Ms.C.M.Shah for the appellant - State has taken this Court through the entire evidence produced by the prosecution and has vehemently argued that the learned Trial Court has not appreciated the evidence properly and the prosecution has produced cogent evidence to prove the case and has successfully proved the case against the accused but the learned Trial Court has not considered the same and has Page 5 of 14 Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Fri Sep 19 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 20 02:54:55 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1079/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025 undefined acquitted the accused. The judgment and order of acquittal passed by the learned Judge is contrary to law, evidence on record and principles of justice. The judgment and order of acquittal passed by learned Judge is based on inferences, not warranted by facts of the case and also on presumption, not permitted by law. Learned APP has urged this Court to quash and set aside the impugned judgment and order of acquittal and to find the accused guilty for the said offence. Learned APP has urged this Court to allow the present appeal and impose maximum sentence on the accused.
7. At the outset, before discussing the facts of the present case, it would be appropriate to refer to the observa- tions of the Apex Court in the case of Chandrappa & Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka reported in 2007 (4) SCC 415, the Apex Court has observed as under:
Recently, in Kallu Vs. 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 Page 6 of 14 Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Fri Sep 19 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 20 02:54:55 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1079/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025 undefined 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, reappreci-
ate and reconsider the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded;
(2) The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 puts no limita-
tion, 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 com-
pelling 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 ac- quittal. 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 pre- sumed 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 Page 7 of 14 Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Fri Sep 19 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 20 02:54:55 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1079/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025 undefined not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial court.
8. It is a settled principle of law that in an appeal against acquittal, the Appellate Court is circumscribed by limit- ation that no interference has to be made in the order of acquit- tal unless after appreciation of the evidence produced before the learned Trial Court, it appears that there are some manifest illegality of perversity which could not have been possibly ar- rived at by the Court. It is also a settled principle that there is no embargo on the Appellate Court to review the evidence but, generally the order of acquittal shall not be interfered with as the presumption of innocence of the accused is further strengthened by the order of acquittal. The golden thread which runs through the web of administration of justice in criminal cases is that if two views are possible on the evidence adduced in the case of the prosecution i.e. (i) guilt of the accused and (ii) his innocence, the view, which is in favour of the accused, should be adopted, and if the learned Trial Court has taken the view in favour of the accused, the Appellate Court should not disturb the findings of the acquittal. The Appellate Court can in- Page 8 of 14 Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Fri Sep 19 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 20 02:54:55 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1079/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025 undefined terfere with the judgment and order of acquittal only when there are compelling and substantial reasons and the order is clearly unreasonable and where the Appellate Court comes to conclu- sion that based on the evidence, the conviction is a must.
9. In light of the above, the evidence produced by the prosecution on record is appreciated and the prosecution has examined PW-1 Maheshbhai Babubhai Vaadodara at Exh.9 and the witness is the complainant who has supported the contents of the complaint which is produced at Exh.10. During the cross- examination, the witness has stated that in the staff quarters, only persons of his community were residing and one house was purchased by the accused. He is known to the accused, and in the complaint, he has not stated that the accused had taken the photograph of his wife..
9.1. PW-2 Vasantben Maheshbhai Vaadodara examined at Exh.12, is the wife of the complainant and she has stated that on the day of the incident, she had gone to the flour mill and at that time, the incident has occurred. The accused was residing in a house situated two-three lines behind their house and the Page 9 of 14 Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Fri Sep 19 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 20 02:54:55 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1079/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025 undefined accused was forcing her to maintain a relationship with him and she did not want to maintain the relationship. She had filed a complaint at the Village Vigilance Office at Bhadra, Ahmedabad which is produced at Exh.13. In the cross-examination, the witness has admitted that she and the accused were in a relationship for the past four years and her husband had come to know about the relationship and there was a quarrel about the same. The accused knew her caste, and at the time of the incident, she had gone to the flour mill to grind grains. She used to go with her younger son Jignesh to meet the accused and they had taken photographs together. Her husband was unhappy with her relationship with the accused.
9.2. PW-3 Pravinbhai Maheshbhai Vaadodara examined at Exh.14 is the son of the complainant, and he has supported the case of the prosecution. During the cross-examination, he has admitted that the quarrel was with regard to his mother and the accused and in a statement before the police, he did not state that the accused had assaulted him.
9.3. PW-4 Madanbhai Karmaji Chavariya examined at Page 10 of 14 Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Fri Sep 19 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 20 02:54:55 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1079/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025 undefined Exh.15 and PW-5 Babuliben Ganapatbhai Marwadi examined at Exh.16 are the independent witnesses, who, as per the case of the prosecution, were eye witnesses to the incident. Both the witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution and have been declared hostile and during the cross-examination by the learned APP, they have denied that they have witnessed any quarrel between the complainant and the accused. 9.4. PW-6 Abdul Razak Abdul Karim Khokhar is the Police Inspector, who has recorded the complaint of the complainant. During the cross-examination, the witnesses admitted that the complainant did not give his caste certificate at the time of filing of the complaint.
9.5. PW-7 Ramanbhai Laujibhai examined at Exh.19 is the PSO, who has registered the complaint.
9.6. PW-8 Dineshkumar Benjibhai Barwalia examined at Exh.20 is the Investigating Officer, who has narrated the entire procedure undertaken during investigation. In the cross- examination, the witnesses has admitted that the complainant Page 11 of 14 Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Fri Sep 19 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 20 02:54:55 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1079/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025 undefined had given his Caste Certificate on 17-07-2007 and he had arrested the accused on 29-06-2007.
10. On minute appreciation of the entire evidence of the prosecution, it is on record that PW-2 Vasantben Maheshbhai Vaadodara and the accused were in a relationship for 4 years and the complainant Maheshbhai, Babubhai Vaadodara came to know about the relations and the complaint has been filed. At the time of filing of the complaint, the caste certificate of the complainant was not given in the police station and it is on record that the accused was aware of the caste of the complainant and his wife, but still he had a relationship with her. Moreover, in the deposition of the complainant, exaggerations have come on record and facts, which have not been mentioned in the complaint, have been stated in the deposition before the court. PW-2 Vasantben Maheshbhai, the wife of the complainant has admitted that she was not at home at the time of the incident and she had gone to the flour mill for grinding grains and independent witnesses PW-4 Madanbhai Karmaji Chawariya and PW-5 Babuliben Ganpatbhai Marwadi have not supported Page 12 of 14 Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Fri Sep 19 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 20 02:54:55 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1079/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025 undefined the case of the prosecution. Hence, the prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubts that the incident has occurred and the accused had assaulted the complainant and had hurled caste slurs against the complainant. Moreover, no panchnama of the place of offence is produced on record and there is no evidence about the caste certificate of the complainant. The investigating officer has not conducted any investigation with regard to the caste of the complainant.
11. In view of the above, 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 Page 13 of 14 Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Fri Sep 19 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 20 02:54:55 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1079/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025 undefined 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 the order passed by the learned Special Judge, City Civil & Special Judge, Ahmedabad in Special Case - Atro No.22 of 2010 (Atrocity) dated 25.01.2011 is hereby confirmed.
13. Bail bond stands cancelled. Record and proceedings be sent back to the concerned learned Trial Court forthwith.
Sd/-
(S. V. PINTO,J) F.S.KAZI.....
Page 14 of 14 Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Fri Sep 19 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 20 02:54:55 IST 2025