Gujarat High Court
Ghanshyambhai Ashokbhai Parmar vs State Of Gujarat on 30 April, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/762/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/04/2026
undefined
Reserved On : 13/04/2026
Pronounced On : 30/04/2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL (AGAINST ACQUITTAL) NO. 762 of 2025
==========================================================
GHANSHYAMBHAI ASHOKBHAI PARMAR
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS.FALGUNI D.TRIVEDI(3912) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MS MEGHA CHITALIYA, APP for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SANJEEV J.THAKER
CAV JUDGMENT
1. Feeling aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment and order of acquittal dated 07.10.2024, passed by rd the learned 3 Additional District and Sessions Judge, Nadiad, in Special Atrocity Case No.29 of 2021, for the offences punishable under Sections 352, 351(2), 54 of the B.N.S. Act (Originally Section 504, 506(2) and 114) of the Indian Penal Code, and Sections 3(1)(R)(S), 3(2)(5-A) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, 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 on 24.08.2021, the Page 1 of 20 Uploaded by URIL KRISHNAKUMAR RANA(HC01406) on Fri May 01 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 05:13:46 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/762/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/04/2026 undefined complainant, Ashokbhai, was travelling to Ahmedabad in his rickshaw to obtain medicine. When he reached the Jalebiyapura area (NH No. 48), near Hariyala village, two accused persons approached on a motorcycle and stopped his rickshaw. Thereafter, the accused verbally abused the complainant and threatened him to withdraw the case filed before the Kheda Court. They also used caste-based abusive language and insulted him on account of his caste, therefore, the complaint was filed 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 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 Special (Atrocity) Case No.29 of 2021. 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 9 witnesses and also produced 6 documentary evidence before the Trial Court, which are described in the Page 2 of 20 Uploaded by URIL KRISHNAKUMAR RANA(HC01406) on Fri May 01 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 05:13:46 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/762/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/04/2026 undefined impugned judgment as under:
Oral Evidence PW Exhibit Witness Name Description/Role No. No. PW- Ghanshyambhai Ashokbhai Complainant 20 1 Parmar (Fariyadi) PW-Ashokbhai Atabhai Parmar Witness 30 2
PW- Badrumiya Pirumiya Panch Witness 32 3 Sheikh PW- Ravikant Ashokbhai Witness 37 4 Parmar PW- Pareshkumar Budhabhai Panch Witness 40 5 Parmar PW-
Janaksinh Ramabhai Police Witness 436 PW-
Bhargav Maheshbhai Mali Police Witness 457 PW-
Ajitsinh Mansinh Thakor Retired Deputy S.P. 46
8
Page 3 of 20
Uploaded by URIL KRISHNAKUMAR RANA(HC01406) on Fri May 01 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 05:13:46 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/762/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/04/2026
undefined
PW Exhibit
Witness Name Description/Role
No. No.
T.D.O. (Taluka
PW-
Kirtikumar Gokaldas Patel Development 50
9
Officer)
Documentary Evidence
Sr. Exhibit
Description of Document
No. No.
1. Complaint 21
2. Panchnama of the scene of the offense 33
3. Copy of the Station Diary 44
4. Authority Letter 47
Certified copy of the birth registration register 5. 48 page 6. Copy of the Caste Certificate 22
5. After hearing both the parties and after analysis of evidence adduced by the prosecution, the learned trial Page 4 of 20 Uploaded by URIL KRISHNAKUMAR RANA(HC01406) on Fri May 01 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 05:13:46 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/762/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/04/2026 undefined 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 advocate for the appellants 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 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 APP for the respondent Page 5 of 20 Uploaded by URIL KRISHNAKUMAR RANA(HC01406) on Fri May 01 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 05:13:46 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/762/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/04/2026 undefined 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 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 in the complaint produced at exhibit 21, that on 24.09.2021, the complainant along with witness Ashokbhai were proceeding to Ahmedabad in a rickshaw for the purpose of procuring medicines. When they reached Jalebiyapura area within the limits of village Hariyala, both the accused persons came on a motorcycle and intercepted the rickshaw of the complainant by standing in front of it. Upon the complainant halting the rickshaw, both the accused persons approached the complainant and the witness and hurled abuses at them and stated that the Page 6 of 20 Uploaded by URIL KRISHNAKUMAR RANA(HC01406) on Fri May 01 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 05:13:46 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/762/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/04/2026 undefined complainant should withdraw the case filed by him at the Kheda Court. They further uttered caste-related derogatory words and thereby intentionally insulted and humiliated the complainant in a public place. The accused persons also extended threats that they would burn the family members of the complainant alive and issued threats to kill them. In respect of the aforesaid incident, the complainant lodged the said complaint.
8.2. The complainant was examined on oath as PW 1, at Exhibit 20. He deposed that at the time of the incident, he was proceeding in a rickshaw along with his father, Ashokbhai, when the accused persons came on a motorcycle, intercepted the rickshaw, and threatened him to withdraw the case filed against them. They abused him, uttered caste-
related derogatory words, and extended threats to kill him. He further stated that due to the incident, his father's blood pressure increased and his condition deteriorated, whereupon they went to Nadiad, procured medicine to control blood pressure from a medical store, and administered it to him. Thereafter, an application was submitted, and subsequently, the present complaint came to be lodged. In cross- examination, he admitted that the place of occurrence is situated about 3-4 km from Kheda and about 22 km from Ahmedabad, and that it is a public place on National Page 7 of 20 Uploaded by URIL KRISHNAKUMAR RANA(HC01406) on Fri May 01 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 05:13:46 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/762/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/04/2026 undefined Highway No. 8 near a gas plant with vehicular movement, though comparatively less during afternoon hours due to heat. 8.3. On behalf of the prosecution, the complainant's father, PW 2, Ashokbhai, who was present at the time of the incident, was examined at Exhibit 30. He has deposed that while he and his son were proceeding towards Ahmedabad, the accused persons intercepted them and pushed them out of the rickshaw. The accused demanded that possession of the land be handed over to them, abused them using caste- related derogatory words, and extended threats to kill them. Thereafter, they went to Nadiad and lodged the complaint. He has further stated that a case is pending in the Kheda Court and that whenever they pass by, the accused persons insult them on the basis of caste. In his cross-examination, he admitted that the incident occurred on a highway where there is vehicular movement, and that he has difficulty in hearing. He has also admitted that in his police statement, the exact words uttered by the accused were not separately recorded. It is further brought on record that a land grabbing complaint has been filed by him against accused No. 1. 8.4. On behalf of the prosecution, the complainant's brother, Ravikant Parmar, was examined at Exhibit 37. This witness has deposed that he came to know about the incident Page 8 of 20 Uploaded by URIL KRISHNAKUMAR RANA(HC01406) on Fri May 01 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 05:13:46 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/762/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/04/2026 undefined through his father. Thus, his evidence is hearsay in nature, and therefore, no reliance can be placed upon his testimony to hold the accused guilty.
8.5. On behalf of the prosecution, to prove the panchnama of the place of offence, panch witnesses Badrumiya Pirumiya Sheikh (Exhibit 32) and Pareshkumar Parmar (Exhibit 40) were examined. However, both these panch witnesses did not support the case of the prosecution and were declared hostile. Therefore, the prosecution has failed to prove the panchnama of the place of offence.
8.6. On behalf of the prosecution, witness Bhargavbhai Maheshbhai Mali was examined on oath at Exhibit 45. In his cross-examination, he admitted that his role was limited to recording the complaint. He has further admitted that the complaint was lodged by the complainant after a delay of twelve days, and no explanation for such delay has been provided in the complaint. He has also stated that, to his knowledge, a civil dispute regarding land is pending between the complainant and the accused.
8.7. On behalf of the prosecution, Kirtikumar Patel was examined on oath at Exhibit 50, who is the Investigating Officer of the case. In his cross-examination, he admitted that Page 9 of 20 Uploaded by URIL KRISHNAKUMAR RANA(HC01406) on Fri May 01 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 05:13:46 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/762/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/04/2026 undefined during the course of investigation, it transpired that civil litigation is pending between the complainant and the accused. He has further admitted that the complainant has also filed another complaint under the provisions of the Atrocities Act. He has also admitted that no explanation has been provided by the complainant for lodging the complaint belatedly. He further stated that he has not investigated as to which religion the complainant professes. He further admitted that he has not taken statements of people in the vicinity of place of incident.
8.8. Thus, material contradictions are found in the evidence of the complainant and that of witness Ashokbhai. The complainant has deposed that the accused asked his father to withdraw the case filed in the Kheda Court and thereafter uttered caste-related abusive words. Whereas witness Ashokbhai has deposed that the accused demanded that possession of the land be handed over to them. 8.9. Further, though witness Ashokbhai, who was present with the complainant at the time of the incident, has deposed that the accused uttered caste-related words, neither the complainant nor the said witness has stated in their evidence that such words were uttered in public view or in the presence of any independent persons. In the cross- Page 10 of 20 Uploaded by URIL KRISHNAKUMAR RANA(HC01406) on Fri May 01 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 05:13:46 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/762/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/04/2026 undefined examination of the complainant, it has been admitted that the place of occurrence is a public place with vehicles and transport, though he stated that such movement is comparatively less during afternoon hours due to heat. Moreover, the Investigating Officer has also stated that the place of incident is situated on a National Highway where there is continuous vehicular movement. Thus, from the evidence on record, it clearly emerges that the place of occurrence is a public place with vehicular movement. However, despite the same, the Investigating Officer has not recorded the statements of any independent witnesses present at or near the place of incident. Thus, the prosecution has failed to prove, beyond reasonable doubt, that the accused persons uttered caste-related abusive words in public so as to intentionally insult and humiliate the complainant and the witness.
8.10. The Sessions Court has also taken into consideration the fact that, there is a lot of contradiction and discrepancies in the evidence of the complainant and his father, who claimed to be present at the time of the incident, whereas, the complainant said that the accused had threatened him of withdrawing the case that is pending at Kheda Court, whereas, the father of the complainant had stated that the accused had threatened him of giving the possession of the Page 11 of 20 Uploaded by URIL KRISHNAKUMAR RANA(HC01406) on Fri May 01 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 05:13:46 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/762/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/04/2026 undefined property.
8.11. The Sessions Court has also taken into consideration, that the prosecution witness Ashokbhai i.e. the father of the complainant, whom the complainant states that his blood pressure had increased and therefore, he was given medicine for the same at Nadiad at the medical store but the fact remains that in his deposition the father of the complainant does not state of any such incident to have taken place. 8.12. It is also the case of the complainant that as soon as the said incident had taken place, he had given an application at SC/ST cell Nadiad and thereafter had gone to his residence and thereafter, a complaint was filed on 06.09.2024, but the fact remains that there are no documentary evidence to support the said fact, neither any application is produced nor the officer of SC/ST Cell have been summoned to produce any documents pertaining to the at alleged complaint that was filed on the date of incident, nor it transpires from the evidence of the Investigating Officer that any such complaint was filed and registered. The prosecution has also failed to prove that the accused had threatened the complainant and /or his father, nor has the prosecution been able to prove by leaving any independent witnesses, in view of the fact that the said incident had Page 12 of 20 Uploaded by URIL KRISHNAKUMAR RANA(HC01406) on Fri May 01 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 05:13:46 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/762/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/04/2026 undefined taken place on the main road.
8.13. Therefore, the appellant has not proved the case against the accused for the offence as alleged. Moreover, as per the observations made by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sajan Sakhariya Vs. State of Kerala and others reported in AIR 2024 SC 4557, every insult or intimidation would not amount to an offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, unless such insult or intimidation is started at a victim because he is a member of a particular Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes. Therefore, from the allegations made in the complaint, the prosecution has not proved that the accused is guilty of an offence under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. 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.
Page 13 of 20 Uploaded by URIL KRISHNAKUMAR RANA(HC01406) on Fri May 01 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 05:13:46 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/762/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/04/2026 undefined
9. Further, learned advocate for the appellant 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, 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 Page 14 of 20 Uploaded by URIL KRISHNAKUMAR RANA(HC01406) on Fri May 01 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 05:13:46 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/762/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/04/2026 undefined 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:
"... 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:
Page 15 of 20 Uploaded by URIL KRISHNAKUMAR RANA(HC01406) on Fri May 01 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 05:13:46 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/762/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/04/2026 undefined "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 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 Page 16 of 20 Uploaded by URIL KRISHNAKUMAR RANA(HC01406) on Fri May 01 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 05:13:46 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/762/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/04/2026 undefined 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 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 Page 17 of 20 Uploaded by URIL KRISHNAKUMAR RANA(HC01406) on Fri May 01 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 05:13:46 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/762/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/04/2026 undefined 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
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 Page 18 of 20 Uploaded by URIL KRISHNAKUMAR RANA(HC01406) on Fri May 01 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 05:13:46 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/762/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/04/2026 undefined 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 19 of 20 Uploaded by URIL KRISHNAKUMAR RANA(HC01406) on Fri May 01 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 05:13:46 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/762/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/04/2026 undefined
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 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 20 of 20 Uploaded by URIL KRISHNAKUMAR RANA(HC01406) on Fri May 01 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 05:13:46 IST 2026