Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Mahendrabhai Mafatbhai Parmar on 30 April, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1647/2010 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/04/2026
undefined
Reserved On : 17/04/2026
Pronounced On : 30/04/2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL (AGAINST ACQUITTAL) NO. 1647 of 2010
==========================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
MAHENDRABHAI MAFATBHAI PARMAR & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS MEGHA CHITALIYA, APP for the Appellant(s) No. 1
RULE SERVED for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3,4
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SANJEEV J.THAKER
CAV JUDGMENT
1. Feeling aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment and order of acquittal dated 15.06.2010, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Kheda at Nadiad, in Sessions Case No.44 of 2010, for the offences punishable under Sections 354, 452, 504 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code, 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 the incident occurred on 14.03.2008, at approximately 6:30 PM. The complainant was cleaning her house while her husband had gone to the village outskirts (boundary) to deliver milk at the brick kilns. Page 1 of 16 Uploaded by URIL KRISHNAKUMAR RANA(HC01406) on Fri May 01 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 05:00:02 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1647/2010 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/04/2026 undefined While she was alone, a man named Mahendrabhai Mafatbhai Parmar entered her house after throwing a cricket ball inside as a pretext. Once inside, he allegedly caught hold of the complainant and attempted to commit rape. The complainant began shouting and tried to escape the house. At that moment, three other individuals Pintu Dahyabhai Parmar, Ashok Vashrambhai Parmar, and Navneetbhai Vinubhai Parmar, were standing at the door. All these individuals are residents of Rasikpura village. They allegedly threatened her, stating that she would face dire consequences if she tried to leave the house. Following these threats and verbal abuse, a formal complaint was filed regarding the incident against the respondent-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. 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 3 documentary evidence before the Trial Court, which are described in the impugned judgment as under:
Page 2 of 16 Uploaded by URIL KRISHNAKUMAR RANA(HC01406) on Fri May 01 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 05:00:02 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1647/2010 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/04/2026 undefined ORAL EVIDENCE Designation/ Exhibit No. Witness Name Role No. Hansaben Kamleshbhai 1 Complainant 9 Baraiya Fatesinh Fulabhai 2 Panch Witness 11 Sodhaparmar Jashiben Shanabhai Amarsinh 3 Witness 13 Chauhan Kamleshbhai Chaturbhai 4 Witness 14 Baraiya Witness 5 Nanubhai Amarsinh Solanki (Turned 15 Hostile) P.S.O. (Police 6 Lalitaben Dhulabhai Dabhi 16 Sub-Officer) I.O.
7 Sursingh Balabhai Parmar (Investigating 18 Officer) Page 3 of 16 Uploaded by URIL KRISHNAKUMAR RANA(HC01406) on Fri May 01 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 05:00:02 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1647/2010 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/04/2026 undefined DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE Exhibit No. Description of Document No. 1 Complaint 10 Panchnama of the Scene of 2 12 Offense Extract of the Station Diary 3 17 Entry
5. After hearing learned advocate for the appellant and 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 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 Page 4 of 16 Uploaded by URIL KRISHNAKUMAR RANA(HC01406) on Fri May 01 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 05:00:02 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1647/2010 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/04/2026 undefined 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. Though served, none appears on behalf of the respondents.
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. The prosecution has mainly relied on the complaint Page 5 of 16 Uploaded by URIL KRISHNAKUMAR RANA(HC01406) on Fri May 01 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 05:00:02 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1647/2010 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/04/2026 undefined that has been filed below Exhibit 10, wherein the complainant has stated that, on 14.03.2008 at around 10.30 p.m., when the complainant was at her residence and when her husband was not at the house, at that time accused no.1- Mahendra Parmar had entered the house of the complainant and had thrown a cricket ball inside the house and after entering the house, he tried to catch hold of the complainant with an intention to rape her and tried to outrage her modesty and the complainant started shouting and came out of the house, At that time accused no.2-Pintu Parmar, accused no.3-Ashok Parmar, accused no.4-Navneet Parmar were standing near the main door of the complainant's residence and came in support of accused no.1 and stated that, if she leaves the house, her life will be endangered and the accused had also abused the complainant.
8.2. The complainant has been examined as P.W.1, in her deposition, she has reiterated the facts stated in the complaint. She has also admitted that, a complaint under the Atrocities Act is filed against the witnesses-Jassiben, Kamleshbhai, Navneetbhai and 18 other people. In her deposition, she has also admitted in the cross-examination that there were disputes with respect to the land belonging to Nanubhai.Page 6 of 16 Uploaded by URIL KRISHNAKUMAR RANA(HC01406) on Fri May 01 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 05:00:02 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1647/2010 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/04/2026 undefined 8.3. The prosecution thereafter has produced the panchnama of scene of offence vide exhibit-12 and the panch witness-Fatehsinh SodhaParmar has been examined as PW2 vide exhibit-11.
8.4. The prosecution has thereafter examined Jashiben Shanabhai Chauhan as PW-3 vide exhibit 13. In her examination-in-chief she has stated that as the complainant did not hand over the cricket ball to the accused no.1, the accused no.1 had tried to snatch the hands of the complainant. She has stated that on hearing the shouting, she came out and came to know that the shouting was from the residence of Kamleshbhai Chaturbhai, i.e. the husband of the complainant and had seen four people coming down from the stairs, wherein the complainant was also present. She has also admitted that, the mother of accused no.3-Ashokbhai had filed a criminal case for the offence under the Atrocities Act against the said witness. 8.5. The prosecution has thereafter examined the husband of the complainant Kamlesh Baria as PW-4 vide exhibit-14. He was not present at the time of incident, but in his cross-examination he has admitted that accused no.3- Ashokbhai Parmar has filed a complaint under the Page 7 of 16 Uploaded by URIL KRISHNAKUMAR RANA(HC01406) on Fri May 01 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 05:00:02 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1647/2010 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/04/2026 undefined Atrocities Act against the said witness and 18 other people.
8.6. The prosecution has examined Nanubhai Solanki as P.W.5 vide exhibit-15, the said witness has turned hostile and has not supported the case of the prosecution. 8.7. The prosecution has thereafter examined PSO at Kheda Police Station-Lalitaben Dabhi vide exhibit-16 as P.W.6, she has produced the station diary which is produced vide exhibit 17.
8.8. The prosecution has thereafter examined the PSI at Kheda Town Police Station vide Exhibit-18 as P.W.7- Sursangbhai Parmar. Even from the deposition of the Police Officers the offence under Sections 354, 452, 504 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code has not been established by the prosecution. The prosecution has not been able to prove that the accused have committed the offence under Sections 354, 452, 504 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code.
8.9. If the evidence of all the witnesses are taken into consideration, the complainant has not been able to prove that the accused no.1 has committed the offence of Page 8 of 16 Uploaded by URIL KRISHNAKUMAR RANA(HC01406) on Fri May 01 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 05:00:02 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1647/2010 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/04/2026 undefined outraging the complainant's modesty. Moreover, there are contradictions in the deposition of the witnesses, whereas in the present case, the Sessions Court has rightly not relied on the deposition of the complainant in view of the fact that it has come on record that Jasiben was not present at the time of incident and she had only seen the accused coming down the stairs and thereafter the alleged incident has been informed to Jasiben by the complainant. The said Jasiben also does not state that the accused had tried to rape complainant as stated in the complaint and as per the deposition of the complainant, the husband of the complainant was also not present at the time of incident. It has also come on record that after the house of the complainant, there was an open road and after the open road, there was a compound wall, there are cross- complaints filed by the parties. There is also a complaint under the Atrocities Act, which has been filed against the witness Jasiben, husband of the complainant Kamleshbhai, Navneetbhai and 18 other people.
8.8. The prosecution has also not been able to prove by any independent witnesses about the alleged offence and the witnesses who have been examined by the prosecution can be said to be the witnesses against whom a cross- complaint has been filed.
Page 9 of 16 Uploaded by URIL KRISHNAKUMAR RANA(HC01406) on Fri May 01 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 05:00:02 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1647/2010 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/04/2026 undefined
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 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, I am 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. Page 10 of 16 Uploaded by URIL KRISHNAKUMAR RANA(HC01406) on Fri May 01 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 05:00:02 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1647/2010 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/04/2026 undefined 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:
"... 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, Cr.P.C. are as extensive as in any appeal Page 11 of 16 Uploaded by URIL KRISHNAKUMAR RANA(HC01406) on Fri May 01 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 05:00:02 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1647/2010 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/04/2026 undefined 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 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 Page 12 of 16 Uploaded by URIL KRISHNAKUMAR RANA(HC01406) on Fri May 01 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 05:00:02 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1647/2010 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/04/2026 undefined 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 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 Page 13 of 16 Uploaded by URIL KRISHNAKUMAR RANA(HC01406) on Fri May 01 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 05:00:02 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1647/2010 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/04/2026 undefined 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.
(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." Page 14 of 16 Uploaded by URIL KRISHNAKUMAR RANA(HC01406) on Fri May 01 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 05:00:02 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1647/2010 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/04/2026 undefined
17. The Hon'ble Apex Court, in a recent decision, in the case of Constable 907 Surendra Singh and Another V/s 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."
16. 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.
17. In view of above facts and circumstances of the case, on my careful re-appreciation of the entire evidence, I Page 15 of 16 Uploaded by URIL KRISHNAKUMAR RANA(HC01406) on Fri May 01 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 05:00:02 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1647/2010 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/04/2026 undefined found that there is no infirmity or irregularity in the findings of fact recorded by learned trial Court and under 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.
18. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, the present Criminal Appeal fails to prove its case and the same deserves to be dismissed and is dismissed, accordingly. Record & Proceedings be remitted to the concerned trial Court forthwith.
Sd/-
(SANJEEV J.THAKER,J) URIL RANA Page 16 of 16 Uploaded by URIL KRISHNAKUMAR RANA(HC01406) on Fri May 01 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 05:00:02 IST 2026