Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Ishwarbhai Dungarbhai Prajapati on 11 September, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1941/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/09/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1941 of 2012
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE S.V. PINTO
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting No
==========================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
ISHWARBHAI DUNGARBHAI PRAJAPATI & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS. C.M. SHAH, APP for the Appellant(s) No. 1
ABATED for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1
MR JAGDHISH SATAPARA(5524) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No.
2,3,4
RULE SERVED for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 5
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE S.V. PINTO
Date : 11/09/2025
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 Special Judge, Surendranagar (hereinafter referred to as "the learned Trial Court") in Special Case No. 47/2011 on 11.09.2012 whereby, the learned Trial Court has acquitted the respondents for the offence punishable under Sections 427, 504 and 114 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections Page 1 of 15 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Fri Sep 19 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 20 03:11:48 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1941/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/09/2025 undefined 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 During the pendency of the appeal, the respondent no.1 has expired and vide order of this Court dated 15.02.2023 the appeal qua the respondent no. 1 is disposed of as infructuous.
1.2 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 - Tejabhai Amrabhai Solanki was residing in Solanki Niwas, Nava Darwaja, Vadhwan and on 20.04.2011 at around 16.00 hours, the accused armed with a sword, spade and pipe came to the house of the complainant and removed the pipeline that was kept behind the house of the complainant. The complainant filed the complaint under Section 504, 427 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 135 of the B.P. Act and Section Page 2 of 15 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Fri Sep 19 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 20 03:11:48 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1941/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/09/2025 undefined 3(1)(10) of the Atrocity Act which came to be registered as Vadhwan Police Station II - C.R. No. 3026 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, Vadhwan and as the said offences against the accused were exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the case was committed to the Sessions Court, Surendranagar as per the provisions of Section 209 of Code of Criminal Procedure and the case was registered as Special Case No. 47/2011.
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. 5 was framed against the accused and the statements of the accused was recorded at Exhs. 6, 7, 8 and 9 respectively, wherein, the accused denied the contents of the charge and the entire evidence of Page 3 of 15 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Fri Sep 19 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 20 03:11:48 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1941/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/09/2025 undefined 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 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 Page 4 of 15 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Fri Sep 19 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 20 03:11:48 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1941/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/09/2025 undefined 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. Jagdish Satapara for the respondent nos. 2 and 4. 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 Page 5 of 15 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Fri Sep 19 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 20 03:11:48 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1941/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/09/2025 undefined respondent guilty for the offences.
6. 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:
"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 Page 6 of 15 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Fri Sep 19 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 20 03:11:48 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1941/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/09/2025 undefined 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', '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 Page 7 of 15 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Fri Sep 19 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 20 03:11:48 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1941/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/09/2025 undefined 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.
7. 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 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.
8. To prove the offence against the accused, the prosecution has in all examined ten witnesses. PW1 - Page 8 of 15 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Fri Sep 19 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 20 03:11:48 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1941/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/09/2025 undefined Tejabhai Amrabhai Solanki examined at Exh. 12 is the complainant and he has supported the facts of the complaint which is produced at Exh. 13. The complainant has also produced his caste certificate at Exh. 14. During the cross-examination, the witness has stated that to the north is the cattle shed of the accused where they tie their cattle and to the east is the Harijanwas and to the left of the Harijanwas are the residences of the accused. The gutter of the Nagarpalika is east-west and to the south of the gutter is the house of the accused. The water of the gutter from the house of the complainant is disposed of on the north side and he did not get any permission from the Nagarpalika for laying any pipeline. He does not know whether the accused had given any application objecting to the pipeline and at the time of the incident, it was summer and nobody else was outside.
8.1 PW2 - Manubhai Tejabhai Solanki examined at Exh. 15 is the son of the complainant who has stated that his brother - Dungarbhai had given an application in the Nagarpalika for the gutter pipeline and the Nagarpalika Page 9 of 15 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Fri Sep 19 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 20 03:11:48 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1941/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/09/2025 undefined employees had come but they were sent back and submissions were made before the Chief Officer. The Chief Officer had himself come to the spot and had given the permission to fit the pipes which was not liked by the accused and hence, they had damaged the pipeline. He had gone to the Sanitation Department along with his father and had called plumber - Popatbhai and had repaired the pipe and as the accused came to know that they had repaired the pipe, they came armed with weapons and abused his father and had broken the pipe. He was inside of the house and when he came out, he saw that the pipe was broken. During the cross-examination by the learned advocate for the accused, the witness has stated that an application was given in the Nagarpalika and at the time of the incident, he was in his house. When he came outside, on hearing the shouts, a number of persons had gathered and they were of his community.
8.2 PW3 - Popatbhai Kalubhai examined at Exh. 16 is an eyewitness to the incident as per the case of the prosecution and he has stated that he was working at the Page 10 of 15 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Fri Sep 19 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 20 03:11:48 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1941/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/09/2025 undefined place of the complainant and at that time, the accused no. 1 and his three sons came and they had verbally assaulted the complainant. He separated them and they had abused the complainant and thereafter, he went home. The younger son of the accused no. 1 had a pipe and the other two sons had swords and one had spade. During the cross- examination by the learned advocate for the accused, the witness has stated that at the time of the incident, he was doing the pipe fitting of the bathroom and when he came out, there were a number of persons gathered there. He did not see anyone breaking the pipe but he had seen the broken pipe. The workers from the Nagarpalika were also present and after the pipeline was fixed no abuses were hurled by the accused.
8.3 PW4 - Mehboobbhai Usmanbhai Mankad examined at Exh. 17 and PW5 - Kantibhai Kushalbhai Joshi examined at Exh. 19 are the panch witnesses of the panchnama of the place of offence, which is produced at Exh. 18. Both the witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution. 8.4 PW6 - Altafbhai Khan Muhammad Chauhan examined Page 11 of 15 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Fri Sep 19 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 20 03:11:48 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1941/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/09/2025 undefined at Exh. 20 is the panch witness of the arrest panchnama produced at Exh. 21. The witness has not supported the case of the prosecution and has been declared hostile. 8.5 PW7 - Bharatbhai Vajubhai Satani examined at Exh. 22 and PW8 - Pareshbhai Bhikhabhai examined at Exh. 24 are the panch witnesses of the arrest panchnama which is produced at Exh. 23. Both the witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution and have been declared hostile.
8.6 PW9 - Balmukund Gautamprasad Bhatt is the PSI who has recorded the complaint of the complainant. 8.7 PW10 - Vishram Dhanjibhai Kharadi examined at Exh. 26 is the Investigating Officer who has narrated in detail the procedure undertaken during the investigation. During the cross-examination, the witness has stated that he had gone to the place of incident on 21.04.2011 at around 08.00 am and had taken the statements of the neighbours. At the time of drawing the panchnama of the place of offence, besides the broken pipes, there were no other marks at the place and no weapons were found.
Page 12 of 15 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Fri Sep 19 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 20 03:11:48 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1941/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/09/2025 undefined
9. On appreciation of the entire evidence of the prosecution, the complainant and his son have stated that the accused were armed with sword, spade and pipe and had come to the house of the complainant and had damaged the pipeline and at the time of the incident, there were many people, as the incident has occurred in the residential area but no independent witnesses have been examined by the prosecution. There is no iota of evidence that the accused had assaulted the complainant and even though, as per the say of the complainant, the accused were armed with weapons, no injury was found on the complainant. PW2 - the son of the complainant has stated that he was inside the house at the time of the incident and PW3 - Popatbhai Kalubhai has not clearly stated as to who had damaged the pipe at the time of the incident. There is no evidence to prove that the incident has occurred and the charge has not been proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubts. As per the complainant - Haribhai Bhojabhai Javat and Pravinbhai Malibhai Valera were eye witnesses to the incident but they have not been examined Page 13 of 15 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Fri Sep 19 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 20 03:11:48 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1941/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/09/2025 undefined before the learned Trial Court. PW3 - Popatbhai has stated that he was doing the fitting of the bathroom at the time of the incident and he was inside and hence, he cannot be said to be an eye witness to the incident. Moreover, the caste slurs that have been hurled as stated by the complainant in the complaint are totally different as stated in the deposition and there is no independent evidence to support the say of the complainant.
10. 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 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 Page 14 of 15 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Fri Sep 19 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 20 03:11:48 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1941/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/09/2025 undefined 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.
11. The impugned judgement and order of acquittal passed by the learned Special Judge, Surendranagar in Special Case No. 47/2011 on 11.09.2012 is hereby confirmed.
12. 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 15 of 15 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Fri Sep 19 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 20 03:11:48 IST 2025