Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Jeshaji Govaji Rajput on 10 September, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1193/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1193 of 2011
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE S.V. PINTO
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting No
==========================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
JESHAJI GOVAJI RAJPUT & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS. C.M. SHAH, APP for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR NIRAV K PADHIYAR(5678) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No.
1,2,3,4,6
NOTICE SERVED for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 7
RULE SERVED for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 5
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE S.V. PINTO
Date : 10/09/2025
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, 2nd Fast Track Court, Deesa Camp Court, Deodar (hereinafter referred to as "the learned Trial Court") in Special Case No. 83 of 2010 on 27.04.2011, whereby, the learned Trial Court has acquitted the respondents for the offence punishable under Sections 325, Page 1 of 18 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Tue Sep 16 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 16 22:49:07 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1193/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025 undefined 324, 504, 506(2) and 114 of Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 135 of the BP Act and Sections 3(1)(10) and 3(1)(11) 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 On 13.08.2008, at around 16.00 hours in village Thara (Raha), the accused nos. 1 to 3 met the complainant -
Keshabhai Nagji Dalit and inquired from him as to why he was not coming to their field to make their fence. The complainant told them that he had work at home and the accused nos. 1 to 3 got angry and started hurling caste slurs against the complainant. The accused no. 1 was armed with an iron rod and gave a blow below the elbow on the left hand of the complainant and the complainant sustained a fracture. The accused no. 2 was armed with a Page 2 of 18 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Tue Sep 16 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 16 22:49:07 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1193/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025 undefined stick and he assaulted the complainant on the back with the stick and the accused no. 3 assaulted the complainant with blows and fists. On the same day, at around 18.30 hours, the accused nos. 4 to 6 came to the field of the complainant situated at village Thara (Raha) and threatened to kill the complainant if he filed a complaint against them regarding the incident that had occurred. The complainant filed the complaint at the Tharad Police Station under Sections 323, 324 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 3(1)(10) of the Atrocity Act which came to be registered at Tharad Police Station I - C.R. No. 122 of 2005. 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, Tharad and as the said offences against the accused were exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the case was committed to the Sessions Court, Basnaskantha at Deodar as per the provisions of Section 209 of Code of Criminal Procedure and the case was Page 3 of 18 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Tue Sep 16 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 16 22:49:07 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1193/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025 undefined registered as Special Case No. 83 of 2010 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. 7 was framed against the accused and the statements of the accused were recorded at Exhs. 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13 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 13 witnesses and produced 16 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 were 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. Page 4 of 18 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Tue Sep 16 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 16 22:49:07 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1193/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025 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 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 and learned advocate Mr. Nirav Padhiyar for the respondent nos. 1 to 4 and 6. Though served, the Page 5 of 18 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Tue Sep 16 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 16 22:49:07 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1193/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025 undefined respondent no. 5 has not remained present either in person or through an advocate. 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 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. 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 doubts, the presumption of innocence in favour of the Page 6 of 18 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Tue Sep 16 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 16 22:49:07 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1193/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025 undefined 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.
7. To prove the offence against the accused, the prosecution has in all examined 13 witnesses. PW1 - Pirabhai Poonmaji Harijan examined at Exh. 15 and PW2 - Shakrabhai Devrambhai Parmar examined at Exh. 17 are the panch witnesses of the panchnama of the place of offence which is produced at Exh. 16. Both the witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution and have been declared hostile.
7.1 PW3 - Varjangbhai Jagmalbhai Rabari examined at Exh. 18 and PW4 - Umabhai Bhikhabhai Rabari examined at Exh. 20 are the panch witnesses of the arrest panchnama of the accused nos. 1 to 3 produced at Exh. 19. Both the witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution and have been declared hostile. 7.2 PW5 - Ranamalji Ajaji Rajput examined at Exh. 22 Page 7 of 18 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Tue Sep 16 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 16 22:49:07 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1193/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025 undefined and PW6 - Hiraji Senaji Rajput examined at Exh. 24 are the panch witnesses of the arrest panchnama of the accused nos. 4 to 6 produced at Exh. 23. Both the witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution and have been declared hostile.
7.3 PW7 - Keshabhai Nagjibhai Meghwal examined at Exh. 25 is the complainant who has stated that on the date of the incident he was going to his agricultural land and the accused nos. 1, 2 and 3 met him and called him to make their fence. Thereafter, he went to the shop of Ujmal to buy some goods and the accused nos. 1 to 3 met him and the accused no. 1 gave a blow on his left hand wrist. The accused no. 2 gave a blow with a stick on his back and the accused no. 3 assaulted him with fists. He was sitting on the ground after being beaten and was taken to the hospital at Tharad by his wife and Dinabhai and as his injuries were more serious, he was taken to the Civil Hospital, Palanpur. The accused did not say anything at the time of the assault and the complainant has produced the complaint at Exh.
26. In the cross-examination, the witness has stated that Page 8 of 18 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Tue Sep 16 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 16 22:49:07 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1193/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025 undefined six persons had come where he was making the fence of his field and all six of them met him together and asked him to come to make their fence. The shop of Ujmal is at a distance of about 40 to 50 feet away from his house and Ujmal and his brother Parasmal and their servant were present at the shop. He had gone to the shop of Ujmal at 04.00 am and he does not know whether there were any other persons present there. Near the shop of Ujmal is the house of Amrabhai, Maghabai Veerchanbhai, Raichanbhai Patel and Rajput Bhamraji's grocery shop and there is a public road in front of the shop. He was beaten while he was going to Ujmal's shop to buy goods and as he shouted, Ujmal's brother came out. He was unconscious after the assault and he was assaulted in the village. His wife had given the complaint and the police had asked him to affix his thumb impression and he had accordingly done so. No incident has occurred at the field.
7.4 PW8 - Mavaji Pratapji Harijan examined at Exh. 27 is the brother of the complainant and an eyewitness to the incident as per the case of the prosecution but the witness Page 9 of 18 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Tue Sep 16 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 16 22:49:07 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1193/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025 undefined has not supported the case of the prosecution and has been declared hostile. In the cross-examination, the witness has admitted that he did not show the police any place of incident and he had taken his brother in the tractor and he had later known that his brother had fallen down from the tractor.
7.5 PW9 - Dr. Ishwarbhai Ramjibhai Patel examined at Exh. 28 is the Medical Officer who was on duty at Referral Hospital, Tharad on 13.08.2008. The witness has stated that at around 07.45 PM, Keshabhai Nagjibhai Harijan was brought for treatment and the police yadi was received on the next day at 02.30 pm. The injured in the history had stated that Jashaji Govaji Rajput, Ajaji Vastaji Rajput, Devabhai Asubhai Rajput, Ravtabhai Sonaji Rajput, Kantibhai Sendhabhai Rabari and Halmataji Vesaji Rajput had assaulted him with axe, stick and iron pipe at around 04.00 pm. On examination, there was a 1) vertical CLW at posterior medial aspect of middle part of left forearm about 1.5 cm x 0.5 cm into muscle deep with red blood clot 2) diffuse swelling of left forearm 3) an oblique contusion at Page 10 of 18 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Tue Sep 16 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 16 22:49:07 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1193/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025 undefined back of chest on right side over 9 th rib near midline about 4.5 cm x 2 cm which was reddish in colour, 4) pain at left knee joint but there was no visible mark of injury tenderness was present, 5) linear abrasion at anteromedial aspect of M3 part of left leg about 6 cm long with red blood clot and 6) linear abrasions at anteromedial aspect of M3 part of right leg about 2 to 3 cm long with red blood clot. Injury nos. 1, 2 and 3 were grievous while injury nos. 4, 5 and 6 were simple and injury no. 1, 2, 3 and 4 were possible by hard and blunt object like lathi while injury nos. 5 and 6 were possible with a sharp pointed object. The medical certificate of Keshavbhai Nagji Harijan is produced at Exh. 31. During the cross examination the witness has admitted that if a person was assaulted on the back three to four times with sticks, three to four injuries would be found and the injury no. 2 was a swelling and there was no distance between the injury no. 1 and 2. In the medical certificate at Exh. 31, injury no. 2 is not shown as internal or external and injury no. 4 was not visible. Injury nos. 5 and 6 could not be possible with an axe and injury no. 1 Page 11 of 18 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Tue Sep 16 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 16 22:49:07 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1193/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025 undefined was possible with a cylindrical object like a pipe. As there was a fracture, he was referred to the Orthopedic Surgeon. 7.6 PW10 - Dr. Hareshkumar Narayandanji Gadvi examined at Exh. 32 is the Medical Officer who was on duty at General Hospital, Palanpur on 14.08.2008. The witness has stated that Keshavbhai Nagjibhai Harijan was brought for treatment with a Refer Chit of Tharad Arogya Kendra and in the history he had stated that on 13.08.2008 at around 04.00 pm Govaji Jesaji Rajput and Vartaji Rajput had assaulted him with an iron rod and an axe. On examination there was a dark red colour contusion 2 cm x 4 cm on the back of right chest lower particulars, 1½ cm stitched wound at left forearm at middle and swelling at middle of left forearm. The x-ray of left radius showed fracture of left ulna and x-ray of chest showed fracture on right side 9th rib. The patient was admitted on 14.08.2008 and discharged on 28.08.2008. The injuries could be caused by hard and blunt object and would recover within four to six weeks if no complication arose. In the cross examination the witness has admitted that besides the Page 12 of 18 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Tue Sep 16 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 16 22:49:07 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1193/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025 undefined injury stated, there were no other injuries on the body of the complainant and injury no. 2 was a sutured wound which was sutured from Tharad. The direction of injury no. 2 is not shown and the patient was only referred for the Orthopaedic Surgeon.
7.7 PW11 - Ugamben Keshavbhai Harijan examined at Exh. 34 is the wife of the complainant who has supported the case of the prosecution but during the cross examination she has admitted that she is not an eyewitness to the incident that had occurred near the shop of Ujmal and she has not seen who had assaulted her husband. Her brother-in-law had come to call her while she was at home and she came to the village at about 5 o'clock and saw her husband lying at their house in the village. Her husband was bleeding as he was injured and his clothes were blood stained and she had filed the complaint and the police had registered the complaint as per her say and that thereafter taken the thumb impression of her husband. 7.8 PW12 - Janmahamad Aminkhan examined at Exh. 36 is the PSO who has recorded the complaint of the Page 13 of 18 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Tue Sep 16 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 16 22:49:07 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1193/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025 undefined complainant and has thereafter, registered the complaint. During the cross examination the witness has denied that the contents of the complaint were written by the wife of the complainant.
7.9 PW13 - Manjibhai Vechatbhai Ozat examined at Exh. 40 is the Investigating Officer who has narrated the entire procedure undertaken by him during the investigation. During the cross examination the witness has admitted that on plain reading of the complaint, no offence under the atrocity act was made out as there were no words or caste slurs in the complaint. The panchnama of the place of offence was drawn and Mavjibhai was present but he did not show the place of incident. Mavjibhai is not an eye witness to the incident and near the place of incident the grocery shop of Ujmal and his residence and as per the say of the complainant, the incident had occurred in front of Ujmal's shop but he has not recorded the statement of Ujmal or any of his family members. There are a number of shops, pan shops and residences but he has not recorded the statement of any neighbours and at the time of the Page 14 of 18 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Tue Sep 16 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 16 22:49:07 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1193/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025 undefined incident the complainant was staying in his agricultural land. During investigation it was found that the incident has occurred in two parts at two different places at two different times but two panchnamas were not drawn. In the charge sheet there was no person named Vastaji Govaji.
8. On appreciation of the entire evidence of the prosecution as per the say of the complainant the incident has occurred in two parts on 13.08.2008 at 16.00 hours at the shop of Ujmal and thereafter at 18.30 hours at his home. In the first incident the accused nos. 1, 2 and 3 had assaulted him and thereafter, he had gone to his house in the village where the accused nos. 4, 5 and 6 came and threatened him. If the complaint produced at Exh. 26 is produced no caste slurs have been used against the complainant and as per the admission of the Investigating Officer PW13 - Manjibhai Vechatbhai Ozat, no offence under the Atrocity Act was made out as per the complaint. Immediately after the incident, the complainant was taken to Referral Hospital, Tharad and before the Medical Officer, the complainant has informed that he has been assaulted Page 15 of 18 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Tue Sep 16 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 16 22:49:07 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1193/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025 undefined by Jashaji Govaji Rajput, Ajaji Vastaji Rajput, Devabhai Hasubhai Rajput, Ravtabhai Sonaji Rajput, Kantibhai Sendhabhai Rabari and Halmataji Vastaji Rajput and thereafter, the complainant was sent to the General Hospital Palanpur where he has named only two persons Govaji Jasaji Rajput and Vastaji Ajaji Rajput. There is a contradiction in the weapons also as stated by the complainant and before the Medical Officer at Referral Hospital, CHC, Tharad the complainant has stated that he was assaulted with axe, sticks and iron pipe whereas before the Medical Officer at General Hospital, Palanpur he was assaulted with an iron rod and an axe. The Medical Officer
- PW9 - Dr. Ishwarbhai Ramjibhai Patel has clearly opined that no injury was caused by an axe and there are major contradictions in the deposition of the witness and there are no independent witnesses to support the case of the prosecution. PW8 - Mavaji Pratapji Harijan is the brother of the complainant but he too has not supported the case of the prosecution and has been declared hostile. PW11 - Ugamben Keshavbhai Harijan is not an eyewitness to the Page 16 of 18 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Tue Sep 16 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 16 22:49:07 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1193/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025 undefined incident and there appears to be exaggeration in the deposition of the complainant. Moreover, the caste certificate of the complainant has been produced on record at Exh. 44 by the Investigating Officer but no investigation has been undertaken with regard to the caste of the complainant and even otherwise the complaint does not disclose any offence under the Atrocity Act. As stated by the complainant, the first incident has occurred in front of the shop of Ujmal which is in a residential area and there are many shops and pan stalls nearby but no independent witnesses have been examined by the prosecution.
9. 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 Page 17 of 18 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Tue Sep 16 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 16 22:49:07 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1193/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025 undefined 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.
10. The impugned judgement and order of acquittal passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 2nd Fast Track Court, Deesa Camp Court, Deodar in Special Case No. 83 of 2010 on 27.04.2011, is hereby confirmed.
11. 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 18 of 18 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Tue Sep 16 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 16 22:49:07 IST 2025