Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Mahendra @ Shamji Muljibhai Vaghela on 8 April, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1349/2009 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 08/04/2026
undefined
Reserved On : 18/03/2026
Pronounced On : 08/04/2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1349 of 2009
==========================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
MAHENDRA @ SHAMJI MULJIBHAI VAGHELA & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR. YUVRAJ BRAHMBHATT, APP for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR NR KODEKAR(5020) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SANJEEV J.THAKER
CAV JUDGMENT
1. Feeling aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment and order of acquittal dated 27.02.2009, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.1, Khambhaliya in Case No. 149/2008, for the offences punishable under Sections 332, 323, 504, 506(2) read with 114 of the Indian Penal Code, and the appellant - State of Gujarat has preferred this appeal under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, "the Code").
2. The prosecution case, as unfolded during the trial before the lower Court, is that as per the complaint, Sanjaysinh Bharatsinh Jadeja, serving as a Conductor in the S.T. Department, lodged an FIR at Sheth Vadala Police Station. It is alleged that on 06.09.2007, while the complainant was on duty, and when the bus reached near Page 1 of 20 Uploaded by ADITYA SINGH(HC02376) on Thu Apr 09 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Apr 09 23:18:19 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1349/2009 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 08/04/2026 undefined Samana Village Bus Stand, the accused persons allegedly obstructed him in discharge of his official duty, caused simple hurt, abused him, and extended threats to kill him. Therefore, the complaint was filed against the respondent/s- accused.
3. After investigation, sufficient prima facie evidence was found against the accused person/s and therefore charge- sheet was filed in the competent criminal Court for the offences as alleged. Since the offence alleged against the accused person/s was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the learned Magistrate committed the case to the Sessions Court where it came to be registered as Case No.149/2008. The charge was framed against the accused person/s. The accused pleaded not guilty and came to be tried.
4. In order to bring home the charge, the prosecution has examined 7 witnesses and also produced 5 documentary evidence before the trial Court, which are described in the impugned judgment.
Oral evidences
Sr.No. Exh.No. Particulars
1. 11 Sanjay Bharatsinh Jadeja
(conductor)
2. 13 Kanaksinh Jayendrasinh
Page 2 of 20
Uploaded by ADITYA SINGH(HC02376) on Thu Apr 09 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Apr 09 23:18:19 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1349/2009 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 08/04/2026
undefined
Jadeja, (Driver)
3. 15 Danabhai Amrabhai
Vaghela
4. 17 Ravirajsinh Mahipalsinh
Jadeja
5. 16 Khodabhai Ramjibhai
Parmar
6. 19 Vallabhai Kunwarbhai
Lakhtaria
7. 21 Pratapgar Ghangar
Goswami (Police Head
Constable)
Documentary evidences
Sr.No Exh.No. Particulars
1. 12 Original Complaint
2. 16 Panchnama of the scene
of offence
3. 20 Certified true copy of
station diary entry no. 20.
4. 22 Copy of cross complaint.
5. 23 Original MLC Papers of
the complainant,
Sanjaysinh Bharatsinh
Jadeja.
5. After hearing both the parties and after analysis of evidence adduced by the prosecution, the learned trial Judge acquitted the accused for the offences for which they were charged, by holding that the prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt.
6. Learned APP for the appellant - State has pointed Page 3 of 20 Uploaded by ADITYA SINGH(HC02376) on Thu Apr 09 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Apr 09 23:18:19 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1349/2009 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 08/04/2026 undefined out the facts of the case and having taken this Court through both, oral and documentary evidence, recorded before the learned trial Court, would submit that the learned trial Court has failed to appreciate the evidence in true sense and perspective; and that the trial Court has committed error in acquitting the accused. It is submitted that the learned trial Court ought not to have given much emphasis to the contradictions and/or omissions appearing in the evidence and ought to have given weightage to the dots that connect the accused with the offence in question. It is submitted that the learned trial Court has erroneously come to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove its case. It is also submitted that the learned Judge ought to have seen that the evidence produced on record is reliable and believable and it was proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused had committed an offence in question. It is, therefore, submitted that this Court may allow this appeal by appreciating the evidence led before the learned trial Court.
7. As against that, learned advocate for the respondent/s would support the impugned judgment passed by the learned trial Court and has submitted that the learned trial Court has not committed any error in acquitting the accused. The trial Court has taken possible view as the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable Page 4 of 20 Uploaded by ADITYA SINGH(HC02376) on Thu Apr 09 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Apr 09 23:18:19 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1349/2009 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 08/04/2026 undefined doubt. Therefore, it is prayed to dismiss the present appeal by confirming the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned trial Court.
8. In the aforesaid background, considering the oral as well as documentary evidence on record, independently and dispassionately and considering the impugned judgment and order of the trial Court, the following aspects weighed with the Court:
8.1. It is the case of the prosecution with complaint provide vide Exh-12, that the complainant and Shri Kanaksinh Jayendrasinh Jadeja are government servants and that at the relevant time they were discharging their official duties. However, no documentary evidence has been produced to substantiate this fact. If the prosecution had so desired, it could have produced the waybill of the bus in question, or the report which, as per the complainant, was submitted to the Depot Manager Shri Talsaniya regarding the incident.
Similarly, the prosecution could have produced the report of the Traffic Controller concerning the movement of the said bus. Documentary proof regarding the presence of the complainant could also have been produced. However, the prosecution has not deemed it appropriate to produce any such documentary evidence.
Page 5 of 20 Uploaded by ADITYA SINGH(HC02376) on Thu Apr 09 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Apr 09 23:18:19 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1349/2009 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 08/04/2026 undefined 8.2. Upon perusal of the evidence of Prosecution Witness No. 1, Sanjaysinh Jadeja vide Exh-11, it appears that when the bus reached village Samana, a commotion arose among the passengers while boarding and alighting from the bus. At that time, the witness requested three passengers who were seated at the rear to come forward, upon which the said passengers became agitated, started abusing, and picked up a quarrel with the complainant. It further transpires that the accused persons extended threats to the complainant stating that, being members of a Scheduled Caste, they would falsely implicate him in a case. The accused also threatened that if the complainant engaged in any dispute with them, they would involve him in a false case, and further extended threats to kill the complainant. 8.3. Thus, upon considering the version of the complainant, the cause of the alleged quarrel as narrated by him does not appear to be plausible or convincing. It is difficult to accept that merely upon a conductor asking passengers seated at the rear to come forward when their stop had arrived, the passengers would, without any provocation, become enraged, start abusing the conductor, or extend threats of falsely implicating him in a case. Such a version does not appear to be natural or believable in the Page 6 of 20 Uploaded by ADITYA SINGH(HC02376) on Thu Apr 09 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Apr 09 23:18:19 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1349/2009 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 08/04/2026 undefined ordinary course of human conduct.
8.4. In the cross-examination of the complainant, he has admitted that he came to know the names of the present accused on the basis of the complaint lodged by them. The complainant has further admitted that prior to filing the present complaint against the accused, one of the accused, namely Mahendrabhai, had already lodged a complaint against him at the police station. 8.5. The complaint has been produced vide exhibit 12. It is stated therein that the accused initiated a quarrel on the ground that the complainant had not issued a ticket. However, during cross-examination by the defence, the complainant avoided admitting this fact by stating that he does not remember whether such a statement was mentioned in the complaint. Thus, upon reading the complaint, it appears that the quarrel had arisen on account of the complainant not issuing tickets to the accused. However, the complainant has neither disclosed the true cause nor admitted this fact. It can, therefore, be said that the complainant has suppressed the material facts underlying the genesis of the incident.
8.6. Upon perusal of the Cross-FIR at Exhibit 22, it Page 7 of 20 Uploaded by ADITYA SINGH(HC02376) on Thu Apr 09 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Apr 09 23:18:19 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1349/2009 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 08/04/2026 undefined appears that the incident occurred on 6th September 2007. The complainant therein, Mahendrabhai, lodged a complaint before the PSI at Sheth Vadala Police Station at about 16:15 hours against the present complainant, Sanjay Singh. Thereafter, the present complainant lodged a complaint against the accused at about 22:00 hours on the same day. Thus, from the timeline, it is evident that the complaint filed by accused Mahendrabhai is prior in point of time. This lends support to the defence contention that the present complaint is a subsequent and retaliatory one, possibly filed to counter the earlier complaint. Therefore, it cannot be said that the present accused were the initial aggressors. 8.7. While explaining the delay in lodging complaint it has been stated by the complainant that he had reached the police station at around 7:30 p.m. to lodge the complaint. However, PW-6, PSO Shri V.K. Lakhtariya examined at Exh. 19, in his cross-examination, has stated that when the complainant approached him, the complaint was recorded immediately without any delay. Further, the Station Diary Entry at Exhibit-20 reflects that the offence came to be registered at 22:00 hours on the basis of the complaint of Sanjay Singh. This clearly indicates that the complainant had approached the police station at around 22:00 hours. Thus, despite having lodged the complaint at that time, the Page 8 of 20 Uploaded by ADITYA SINGH(HC02376) on Thu Apr 09 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Apr 09 23:18:19 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1349/2009 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 08/04/2026 undefined complainant falsely stated that he had reached the police station at 7:30 p.m. and had to wait due to the absence of the PSI.
8.8. The material aspect emerging from the complaint at Exh-12 and the overall evidence of the complainant, Sanjaysinh, is that he has mentioned only one witness, namely the driver Kanaksinh Jayendrasinh Jadeja, in the FIR, while stating that the remaining witnesses would be those revealed during investigation. This has been rightly questioned by the defence, contending that such omission enables the complainant to subsequently introduce witnesses of his choice. In this regard, the evidence of prosecution witness Raviraj Singh Mahipatsinh Jadeja assumes significance, as he has admitted in his cross-examination that both the complainant and the said driver Kanaksinh Jayendrasinh Jadeja belong to his village and caste, and he is well acquainted with them. In such circumstances, had this witness actually been present on the bus at the time of the incident, his name would have found place in FIR. 8.9. It has come on record that the witness Raviraj Singh is acquainted with the complainant SanjaySinh and the driver Kanaksinh Jayendrasinh Jadeja. The same fact has also been stated by the driver in his examination-in-chief, Page 9 of 20 Uploaded by ADITYA SINGH(HC02376) on Thu Apr 09 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Apr 09 23:18:19 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1349/2009 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 08/04/2026 undefined wherein he has deposed that persons from his village, namely Raviraj Singh and Khodabai, were present in the bus at the time of the incident. Further, as per the complainant, the said driver Kanaksinh Jayendrasinh Jadeja remained present beside him while the complaint was being recorded. In such circumstances, a serious question arises as to why the names of these material witnesses, Raviraj Singh and Khodabai, were not mentioned in the FIR.
8.10. The complainant has stated that at the relevant time there were about 25 to 30 passengers in the bus, including daily up-down students known to him. However, he has also deposed, by way of contradiction, that no person known to him was present in the bus at that time. This version appears to be false and unreliable. In view of his own admission that such a number of daily commuting students were present and considering that he had been serving on the same route for about one and a half years, it is reasonable to infer that he would have been acquainted with them by name. Thus, his statement that no known persons were present in the bus is clearly inconsistent and not worthy of reliance.
8.11. Thus, students can be considered independent witnesses to the incident. However, no such student has been Page 10 of 20 Uploaded by ADITYA SINGH(HC02376) on Thu Apr 09 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Apr 09 23:18:19 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1349/2009 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 08/04/2026 undefined named in the complaint. Despite the availability of such independent witnesses, neither have their names been disclosed in the FIR nor have they been examined during the investigation. No explanation has been offered by the prosecution for such non-examination, which creates a serious doubt regarding the prosecution case.
8.12. PW-2, Kanaksinh Jayendrasinh Jadeja (Exh. 13), the driver of the bus had deposed that at about 12:00 noon, when the bus reached Samana village and passengers were boarding and alighting, a commotion took place, and he saw a quarrel and scuffle between the complainant and the accused. He intervened and separated them and further stated that the accused abused and threatened to implicate the complainant in an Atrocity case. However, this witness appears to have deposed only in a manner favourable to the complainant, as his evidence does not disclose the cause of the quarrel or the reason for the alleged abuses by the accused. Furthermore, this witness has not stated that accused Nos. 2 and 3, who are women, had abused the complainant. In contrast, the complainant has specifically alleged that all three accused had abused him. This material omission creates a contradiction between the evidence of the complainant and that of the witness.
Page 11 of 20 Uploaded by ADITYA SINGH(HC02376) on Thu Apr 09 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Apr 09 23:18:19 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1349/2009 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 08/04/2026 undefined 8.13. Further, PW-6, PSO Lakhtariya (Exh. 19), has recorded the complaint on the basis of which the offence came to be registered against the present accused, and thereafter the investigation was carried out by PW-7, Head Constable Goswami (Exh. 21), culminating in the filing of the charge sheet. The evidence of these witnesses is merely formal and official in nature. In the circumstances where the substantive evidence of the complainant and other witnesses is found to be unreliable and not worthy of credence, the procedural evidence of these police officials cannot, in itself, be treated as sufficient to establish the guilt of the accused. 8.14 The trial Court, while considering the evidences in detail, has observed that the prosecution has failed to prove the case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. While discussing the evidence in detail, the trial court has found that the only allegation against the accused is of speaking indecent words against the caste of the complainant. The trial Court has gone into the evidence in detail and has come to the conclusion that the accused are not guilty of the alleged offence.
9. Further, learned APP is not in a position to show any evidence to take a contrary view in the matter or that the approach of the Court below is vitiated by some manifest Page 12 of 20 Uploaded by ADITYA SINGH(HC02376) on Thu Apr 09 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Apr 09 23:18:19 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1349/2009 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 08/04/2026 undefined illegality or that the decision is perverse or that the Court below has ignored the material evidence on record. In above view of the matter, this Court is of the considered opinion that the Court below was completely justified in passing impugned judgment and order.
10. Considering the impugned judgment, the trial Court has recorded that there was no direct evidence connecting the accused with the incident and there are contradictions in the depositions of the prosecution witnesses. In absence of the direct evidence, it cannot be proved that the accused are involved in the offence. Further, the motive of the accused behind the incident is not established. The trial Court has rightly considered all the evidence on record and passed the impugned judgment. The trial Court has rightly evaluated the facts and the evidence on record.
11. It is also a settled legal position that in acquittal appeal, the appellate court is not required to re-write the judgment or to give fresh reasoning, when the reasons assigned by the Court below are found to be just and proper. Such principle is down by the Apex Court in the case of State of Karnataka Vs. Hemareddy, reported in AIR 1981 SC 1417 wherein it is held as under:
Page 13 of 20 Uploaded by ADITYA SINGH(HC02376) on Thu Apr 09 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Apr 09 23:18:19 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1349/2009 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 08/04/2026 undefined "... This court has observed in Girija Nandini Devi V. Bigendra Nandini Chaudhary (1967)1 SCR 93: (AIR 1967 SC 1124) that it is not the duty of the appellate court when it agrees with the view of the trial court on the evidence to repeat the narration of the evidence or to reiterate the reasons given by the trial court expression of general agreement with the reasons given by the Court the decision of which is under appeal, will ordinarily suffice."
12. Thus, in case the appellate court agrees with the reasons and the opinion given by the lower court, then the discussion of evidence at length is not necessary.
13. In the case of Ram Kumar v. State of Haryana, reported in AIR 1995 SC 280, Supreme Court has held as under:
"The powers of the High Court in an appeal from order of acquittal to reassess the evidence and reach its own conclusions under Sections 378 and 379, Page 14 of 20 Uploaded by ADITYA SINGH(HC02376) on Thu Apr 09 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Apr 09 23:18:19 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1349/2009 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 08/04/2026 undefined Cr.P.C. are as extensive as in any appeal against the order of conviction.
But as a rule of prudence, it is desirable that the High Court should give proper weight and consideration to the view of the Trial Court with regard to the credibility of the witness, the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused, the right of the accused to the benefit of any doubt and the slowness of appellate Court in justifying a finding of fact arrived at by a Judge who had the advantage of seeing the witness. It is settled law that if the main grounds on which the lower Court has based its order acquitting the accused are reasonable and plausible, and the same cannot entirely and effectively be dislodged or demolished, the High Court should not disturb the order of acquittal."
14. As observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajesh Singh & Others vs. State of Uttar Pradesh reported in (2011) 11 SCC 444 and in the case of Page 15 of 20 Uploaded by ADITYA SINGH(HC02376) on Thu Apr 09 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Apr 09 23:18:19 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1349/2009 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 08/04/2026 undefined Bhaiyamiyan Alias Jardar Khan and Another vs. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in (2011) 6 SCC 394, while dealing with the judgment of acquittal, unless reasoning by the trial Court is found to be perverse, the acquittal cannot be upset. It is further observed that High Court's interference in such appeal in somewhat circumscribed and if the view taken by the trial Court is possible on the evidence, the High Court should stay its hands and not interfere in the matter in the belief that if it had been the trial Court, it might have taken a different view.
15. In the case of Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka, reported in (2007) 4 SCC 415, the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed as under:
"42. From the above decisions, in our considered view, the following general principles regarding powers of the 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 Page 16 of 20 Uploaded by ADITYA SINGH(HC02376) on Thu Apr 09 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Apr 09 23:18:19 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1349/2009 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 08/04/2026 undefined the order of acquittal is founded. (2) The Criminal Procedure Code, 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 emphasise 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.Page 17 of 20 Uploaded by ADITYA SINGH(HC02376) on Thu Apr 09 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Apr 09 23:18:19 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1349/2009 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 08/04/2026 undefined (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 is 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."
16. The Hon'ble Apex Court, in a recent decision, in the case of Constable 907 Surendra Singh and Another V/s Page 18 of 20 Uploaded by ADITYA SINGH(HC02376) on Thu Apr 09 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Apr 09 23:18:19 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1349/2009 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 08/04/2026 undefined State of Uttarakhand reported in (2025) 5 SCC 433, has held in paragraph 24 as under:
"24. It could thus be seen that it is a settled legal position that the interference with the finding of acquittal recorded by the learned trial Judge would be warranted by the High Court only if the judgment of acquittal suffers from patent perversity; that the same is based on a misreading/omission to consider material evidence on record; and that no two reasonable views are possible and only the view consistent with the guilt of the accused is possible from the evidence available on record."
17. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court while considering the scope of appeal under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 no case is made out to interfere with the impugned judgment and order of acquittal.
18. In view of above facts and circumstances of the case, on my careful re-appreciation of the entire evidence, I found that there is no infirmity or irregularity in the findings of fact recorded by learned trial Court and under Page 19 of 20 Uploaded by ADITYA SINGH(HC02376) on Thu Apr 09 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Apr 09 23:18:19 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1349/2009 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 08/04/2026 undefined the circumstances, the learned trial Court has rightly acquitted the respondent/s - accused for the elaborate reasons stated in the impugned judgment and I also endorse the view/finding of the learned trial Court leading to the acquittal.
19. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, the present Criminal Appeal fails to prove and the same deserves to be dismissed and is dismissed, accordingly. Record & Proceedings be remitted to the concerned trial Court forthwith.
(SANJEEV J.THAKER,J) ADITYA SINGH Page 20 of 20 Uploaded by ADITYA SINGH(HC02376) on Thu Apr 09 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Apr 09 23:18:19 IST 2026