Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Virsangbhai Ramjibhai Chaudhary on 19 September, 2025
Author: Umesh A. Trivedi
Bench: Umesh A. Trivedi
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1680/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/09/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1680 of 2009
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH A. TRIVEDI
======================================
Approved for Reporting No Yes
No
======================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
VIRSANGBHAI RAMJIBHAI CHAUDHARY & ORS.
======================================
Appearance:
MR BHARGAV PANDYA, ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for
the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR N P CHAUDHARY(3980) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s)
No. 1,2
MR HARSHAL PATEL for MR TUSHAR CHAUDHARY(5316) for the
Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1,2
UNSERVED EXPIRED(R)for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s)No. 3
======================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH A. TRIVEDI
Date : 19/09/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
[1.0] This is an Appeal filed under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') challenging the judgment and order of acquittal recorded by the learned Special Judge, Banaskantha, Palanpur dated 16.06.2009 in Special (Atrocity) Case No.20 of 2009 whereby the respondents - accused have come to be acquitted for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 504, 506(2) Page 1 of 12 Uploaded by SIJI THOMAS(HC00174) on Tue Sep 23 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 23 23:13:27 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1680/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/09/2025 undefined and 114 of the Indian Penal Code as also under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').
[2.0] As per the case of the prosecution, first informant - Bhikhabhai Jethabhai Solanki, who stays at Village Parkhadi of Vadgam Taluka is doing labour work. As per his case, on 26.06.2008 at about 9:00 - 9:30, when he went to the market to buy 'bidi' accused no.1 - respondent no.1 met him and scolded him as to why he is not coming for labour work in his field, to which, first informant replied that he does not wish to work in his field. Thus, as per the first informant, accused no.1 uttered insulting words to the caste of the victim, and therefore without any further conversation, first informant went to the field of one Sardarbhai Ramjibhai Choudhary where he was doing labour work and slept there.
[2.1] However, at about 10:00 p.m. respondent no.1 - accused, his wife and his son came to the field where he was sleeping and again insulted his caste and took up quarrel for the very same reason he was scolded. When first informant asked him not to abuse him, all the three accused got enraged and assaulted the first informant. Accused no.1 - Virsangbhai gave stick blow in his back side of the waist. It is alleged that accused no.2 and her son Rakesh both gave kick and fist blows to the first informant. On raising alarm by first informant, his son Nathabhai and wife reached the field alongwith his daughter Surajben and other persons also assembled there. As per his case, all intervened, and therefore, he was rescued. However, while going back, Page 2 of 12 Uploaded by SIJI THOMAS(HC00174) on Tue Sep 23 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 23 23:13:27 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1680/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/09/2025 undefined accused no.1 administered threat of dire consequences. Thereafter, first informant was taken to Vadgam Hospital where he was given primary treatment and referred to Government Hospital, Palanpur late night. Thus, first informant gave FIR before PSI, Vadgam Police Station.
[2.2] Pursuant to the registration of an offence, investigation started and statements of different witnesses, panchnamas etc. were drawn, collecting necessary caste certificate, medical certificates etc., the charge-sheet has come to be filed in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Palanpur. However, since case is exclusively triable by the Special Court i.e. Court of Sessions, it came to be committed.
[2.3] After ensuring compliance under the provisions of 'the Code' for providing necessary documents and papers to the accused, charge has come to be framed for the aforesaid offence vide Exh.7.
[2.4] Though first informant has involved son of the accused, from the judgment and order of acquittal, it is not clear whether he is prosecuted or not, and therefore, the case proceeded against the aforesaid respondents - accused.
[2.5] To prove the case against the accused, prosecution has examined 8 witnesses and produced and proved nearly 12 documents. On appreciation of evidence led before the Special Court and hearing the arguments on behalf of the prosecution as also the accused, learned Judge has passed the impugned judgment and order of acquittal, against which present Appeal Page 3 of 12 Uploaded by SIJI THOMAS(HC00174) on Tue Sep 23 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 23 23:13:27 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1680/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/09/2025 undefined is preferred.
[3.0] Heard Mr. Bhargav Pandya, learned Additional Public Prosecutor. According to his submission, so far as injuries to the first informant are concerned, there is consistent evidence of two Doctors, except the more injuries recorded by the Doctor who treated him first. However, on that ground, according to the submission of him, accused could not have been acquitted. He has further submitted that non examination of independent witnesses may not entail in an order of acquittal, if the evidence led before the Court is sufficient to prove the case against the accused. At any rate, according to his submission, injury with stick, as alleged in the FIR, is corroborated by the FIR and the deposition of P.W. 4 - Nathalal Bhikhabhai Solanki - son of the fist informant, and therefore, he has submitted that there being sufficient material evidence against the accused, the learned Judge could not have passed the judgment and order of acquittal. Hence, he requests for interference of this Court in the aforesaid acquittal Appeal on the basis of reappreciation of evidence.
[4.0] As against that, Mr. Harshal Patel, learned advocate for Mr. Tushar Chaudhary, learned advocate for the respondents - accused, submitted that most vital witness, who received the injury as the victim and gave FIR, is not examined before the Court. Over and above that, despite the incident occurred on 26.06.2008, FIR for the same has come to be filed on 02.07.2008 i.e. nearly after a week, which inspires no confidence. Referring to the cross examination of P.W. 2 - Laxmiben Bhikhabhai Solanki i.e. wife of the first informant, it Page 4 of 12 Uploaded by SIJI THOMAS(HC00174) on Tue Sep 23 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 23 23:13:27 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1680/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/09/2025 undefined is submitted that after consulting an advocate, an application is prepared by him, which has been given to the witness and it has been forwarded to different Police Authorities on the basis of which the FIR has come to be filed, and therefore, he has submitted that it is not the natural and real version either by the first informant or even by the witnesses. Over and above that, he has submitted that though independent witnesses are available, more particularly, the person in whose field this incident occurred, the prosecution has failed to examine him before the Court in support of the prosecution case, and therefore, he has submitted that the learned Judge has rightly given benefit of doubt in recording order of acquittal of the accused, and therefore, he has requested that this Court while exercising appellate jurisdiction may not interfere in the order of acquittal as the view taken by the learned Judge giving benefit of doubt is also a possible view. He has submitted that in view of the decisions of the Supreme Court, even if two views are possible of the evidence, the view, which is favourable to the accused and taken by the learned Judge should not be interfered with while exercising appellate power challenging the judgment and order of acquittal, and therefore, he has requested that this Appeal be dismissed.
[5.0] Having heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor as also learned advocate for the accused and on reappreciation of evidence, to which Mr. Bhargav Pandya, learned Additional Public Prosecutor took me through it alongwith the documents produced and proved, let me examine whether any interference of this Court, that too, in this acquittal Appeal is required or not.
Page 5 of 12 Uploaded by SIJI THOMAS(HC00174) on Tue Sep 23 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 23 23:13:27 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1680/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/09/2025 undefined [5.1] Starting with the deposition of the Doctor, who treated the victim first, he is the Medical Officer, CHC, Vadgam, Banaskantha, Dr. Anilkumar Ratnaji Baranda who is examined as P.W. 8. According to him, while he was on duty at 11:15 p.m. at the hospital, relatives of Bhikhabhai Jethabhai Solanki brought him without Police yadi for the purpose of treatment. Before him, history was given that in the field of Sardarbhai Ramjibhai at Village Chhaniyana, respondents - accused and their son Rakeshbhai on 26.06.2008 at about 8:00 p.m. assaulted him with stick and injured him. However, who has given the history is not mentioned by the Doctor. So far as injuries are concerned, he found red coloured contusion of 3x3 cm on his right upper arm. Injury no.2 has recorded that the patient complained of severe pain on L3 and L4 Vertebra of spinal cord. The third injury recorded was of pain in the front portion of his neck. Thus, out of three injuries, two injuries were not visible but it is complaint of pain whereas physical injury even of contusion is on the right upper arm. According to the said Doctor, after giving primary treatment, he was referred to Palanpur Civil Hospital for expert opinion. The said injuries were possible by hard and blunt substance. He has also said that the said injuries are possible with stick as well.
[5.2] Now, considering the evidence of Dr. Hareshkumar Narayandan Gadhvi - P.W. 1 found red colour contusion on left side lower back of 10 cm x1.5 c.m, which is almost contrary to the visible injury recorded by the Medical Officer, CHC, Vadgam Dr. Anilkumar Ratnaji Baranda. Though the complaint of backache is noted, there was no visible injury at that place.
Page 6 of 12 Uploaded by SIJI THOMAS(HC00174) on Tue Sep 23 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 23 23:13:27 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1680/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/09/2025 undefined At the same time, X-ray shows no fracture. Doctor found the injuries to be simple in nature. Not only there is any consistent injuries noted by two different Doctors found on the body of the injured even according to the injured himself in his FIR accused no.1 gave stick blow on the lower back of him. As such the first informant attributed only stick to accused no.1 alone and no other accused. It is also not the case of the victim, though he is not examined before the Court, that there were multiple injuries inflicted by accused no.1, and therefore, the kind of injuries of contusion or may be abrasion at different places may not be giving true and correct picture of the case pleaded by the first informant in his FIR.
[5.3] Most surprisingly, victim - first informant - Bhikhabhai Jethabhai Solanki is not examined by the prosecution before the Court to prove first hand version before the Court about the injuries caused to him and by whom. The spacious plea put forward by the prosecution that as per the statement recorded of him and neighbour witnesses he is not of a sound mind. Be that as it may, it has not been brought before the Court by any contemporaneous record that he is unable to give deposition before the Court. That has deprived the defence of true and effective defence by way of cross examining him about the real reason about the FIR filed against them.
[5.4] In view thereof, it would be an important evidence of the wife of the victim, who is examined as P.W. 2 - Laxmiben Bhikhabhai Solanki. According to her deposition, after hearing the shouts, she, her son Nathabhai and daughter Page 7 of 12 Uploaded by SIJI THOMAS(HC00174) on Tue Sep 23 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 23 23:13:27 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1680/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/09/2025 undefined Surajben went to the field of Sardarbhai where the victim was staying. As per her deposition, when they reached there and found the victim having injuries, accused were not there and had gone away. She has further deposed to before the Court that her husband i.e. victim Bhikhabhai Jethabhai Solanki received injuries over his head. This is the third version of the injuries caused to the victim apart from the two different places found by two different Doctors, who are examined by the prosecution before the Court. As asserted in the deposition by her, injury has affected brain of the victim. The victim is not fully understanding what someone is telling to him. He does not go outside the house and he does not speak as well. Thus, it is clear that P.W. 2 Laxmiben, wife of the victim is not an eye witness to the incident nor she has seen any of the accused at the place of the incident, and therefore, so far as assault and injuries found on the person of the victim as also utterances by accused no.1 insulting the caste of the accused, there appears no evidence led by P.W. 2 - Laxmiben Bhikhabhai Solanki wife of the victim before the Court.
[5.5] Her cross examination has brought further interesting things. In between the place of the incident and her residence, there appears several persons residing and having their field, which is occupied. Not only that, at the time of the incident, there were other tenants, who were watering the field present. Thus, despite availability of independent witnesses at the place who were there before even Prosecution Witnesses reached, prosecution has not examined them before the Court. Cross examination of her further revealed that despite they took her husband at Page 8 of 12 Uploaded by SIJI THOMAS(HC00174) on Tue Sep 23 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 23 23:13:27 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1680/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/09/2025 undefined Vadgam Police Station alongwith her relatives, they stayed at the Police Station at that time no complaint or FIR was given. However, cross examination further reveal that her husband i.e. victim was taken at night to Palanpur Civil Hospital.
[5.6] Further as revealed from the cross examination of Laxmiben Bhikhabhai Solanki - P.W.2 before filing FIR they consulted an advocate. She has admitted that an advocate has got one application prepared and typed, which they forwarded it to different places. She has further admitted that in that application out of emotion some exaggeration was there. Thus, it is clear that despite the incident occurred on 26.06.2008 FIR has come to be registered on 02.07.2008. The prosecution has not brought on record that at what time witnesses met advocate and got prepared the application. Even P.W. 2 - Laxmiben has also not clearly stated when they consulted an advocate for preparing an application for getting the FIR registered. Thus, not only there are certain vital admissions, the FIR is also registered so late, that too, it is based on an application prepared by the advocate. Thus, the evidence of Laxmiben Bhikhabhai Solanki i.e. wife of the victim is not throwing any light on the guilt of the accused for any of the offences as aforesaid.
[5.7] The prosecution examined, P.W. 3 - Bhikhabhai Muljibhai Chaurasia, who is working as Junior Clerk in the office of Social Welfare Officer, who prepared the caste certificate of the victim based on the application by him. He has also mentioned about the register maintained in his office and an Page 9 of 12 Uploaded by SIJI THOMAS(HC00174) on Tue Sep 23 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 23 23:13:27 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1680/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/09/2025 undefined entry made in the register dated 05.07.2008 to that effect. Though it is not in dispute that the accused is of scheduled caste, his evidence is not that material.
[5.8] Most material evidence is that of P.W. 4 - Nathabhai Bhikhabhai Solanki, who is son of the victim. Despite son of the victim, wife of the victim and daughter of the victim all together reached the place of the incident, wife of the victim in clear terms in examination-in-chief stated that when they reached the place of incident, they found her husband having injuries whereas accused were not there and they went away. Exactly contrary to that, P.W. 4 - Nathalal Bhikhabhai Solanki, who is son of the victim, deposed to before the Court that when they reached the place of incident, respondent no.1 accused was beating his father with stick. However, he has clearly stated that nothing else has happened and no other utterances were there. He has also deposed to before the Court that the person in whose field victim was working came thereafter. The said evidence is also just opposite to the deposition of Laxmiben - mother of the present witness, who together reached the place of the incident. Though witness has denied in his evidence that he has stated before the Police thereafter meeting an advocate an application was prepared and pursuant thereto Vadgam Police reached Civil Hospital and recorded first information of his father. However, this has been proved to be real contradiction and so stated in his statement is brought on record through the Investigating Officer. Neither the present witness nor anyone else gave any complaint to the Police despite they have reached Vadgam Police Station on the date of the incident or before any Police Page 10 of 12 Uploaded by SIJI THOMAS(HC00174) on Tue Sep 23 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 23 23:13:27 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1680/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/09/2025 undefined at Palanpur.
[5.9] Depositions of other witnesses, who are Panch Witnesses to prove physical examination of accused, who turned hostile and even otherwise, it is not that much material. Alongwith that panchnama, accused is claimed to have produced the stick before the Police, which is recovered. Panch Witness to the scene of offence panchnama is also examined before the Court but she has not supported the case of the prosecution, and therefore, her evidence is also not that material.
[5.10] Considering the deposition of P.W. 7 - Silvester Khandas Makwan, who is Investigating Officer except stating that he seized muddamal stick under the panchnama, he has not deposed to before the Court that accused produced the same while they surrendered before the Police. Thus, the stick was produced by the accused and recovered from him is not proved on record.
[5.11] Considering the overall evidence led before the Court, it is very clear that even the Doctors are not at ad idem for the injuries sustained by the victim. They found injuries at different places except pain in the lower back. However, for visible injuries, both the Doctors deposed to before the Court different places altogether. Over and above that, the victim himself is not examined before the Court, and therefore, the defence of the accused is seriously prejudiced as they had no opportunity to cross examine him. The utterances insulting the caste of the victim is also not deposed to by any of the Page 11 of 12 Uploaded by SIJI THOMAS(HC00174) on Tue Sep 23 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 23 23:13:27 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1680/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/09/2025 undefined witnesses before the Court though it is in the FIR. Despite, P.W. 4 - Nathalal Bhikhabhai Solanki, son of the accused, claimed that respondent no.1 - accused no.1 beat with stick his father but so far as utterances insulting the caste of the victim there is no evidence deposed to by him. As such, though independent witnesses were available and present even before the witnesses, who are examined before the Court were assembled at the place of incident, they have not been examined by the prosecution.
[5.12] As such, the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the case against the accused but learned Judge has given them benefit of doubt. Be that as it may, there appears no view possible other than the view taken by the learned Judge in ordering acquittal of the accused for the offences alleged against them.
[5.13] On reappreciation of evidence, I am unable to entertain this Appeal challenging the judgment and order of acquittal, on the well settled principle of law for exercising powers of Appeal considering the judgment and order of acquittal. Hence, I see no reason to entertain this Appeal.
[6.0] In view thereof, this Appeal is without any merit, and therefore, it is hereby dismissed. Record and Proceedings, if any, be sent back immediately to the trial Court.
(UMESH A. TRIVEDI, J.) siji Page 12 of 12 Uploaded by SIJI THOMAS(HC00174) on Tue Sep 23 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 23 23:13:27 IST 2025