Gujarat High Court
Viththalbhai Mafabhai Paramar vs State Of Gujarat on 27 January, 2021
Bench: Bela M. Trivedi
R/CR.A/260/2020 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 260 of 2020
==========================================================
VITHTHALBHAI MAFABHAI PARAMAR
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
HCLS COMMITTEE(4998) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR PATHIK M ACHARYA(3520) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 2,3,4,5,6,7
MS CM SHAH, APP for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE BELA M. TRIVEDI
Date : 27/01/2021
ORAL ORDER
1. The present Appeal has been filed by the appellantoriginal
victim under Section 372 of Cr.P.C. challenging the impugned
judgment and order dated 23.12.2019 passed by the Special Court
(Atrocity Act), Rajkot in Special Atrocity Case No. 26 of 2018, whereby
the Special Court has acquitted the respondentsaccused from the
charges leveled against them under the provisions contained in
Sections 325,504, 143, 147 and 149 of IPC and Sections 3(1)(r) and
3(2)(5a) of the Scheduled Castes and Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities)
Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as "the said Act").
2. As per the case of the appellantvictim on 05.04.2017 at about
8:30 P.M. the accused No. 2 Bharatbhai Damjibhai was beating one
Radhabhai Vaghela near Gokul STD, Siyani Chambers. When the
victim came there to see the incident, the accused No. 2 abused the
victim. Thereafter, the victim went to sit with his friend, however all
the accused started abusing him. Thereafter, the accused No.1 started
beating the victim with wooden sticks (dhoka) and the accused no. 6
R/CR.A/260/2020 ORDER
started beating the victim with iron rods. The said case was registered
as CR. I. No. 74 of 2017 at Bhaktinagar Police Station, Rajkot City.
After the completion of the investigation, the Investigating Officer
submitted the chargesheet before the Special Court, which tried the
case and acquitted the accused as stated hereinabove.
3. Learned Advocate Mr. Acharya appearing for the applicant
vehemently submitted that the trial Court has misappreciated the
evidence on record and acquitted the respondentaccused on the
ground that the prosecution had failed to establish that the incident
had taken place at a public place and in presence of the accused
persons.
4. Having regard to the submissions made by the learned Advocate
for the appellant and to the documents on record, more particularly
the judgment of acquittal in question, it transpires that the Special
Court has acquitted the accused mainly on the ground that the
prosecution had failed to prove the ingredients of the offences charged
against the accused and that there were number of contradictions in
the evidence of the witnesses examined by the prosecution. It also
appears that the very presence of the accused was not established.
The Court had also not found the evidence of the complainant
trustworthy and believable. The complainant had also admitted in his
evidence that if anybody filed the complaint under the Atrocities Act,
he would get financial assistance of Rs. 75,000/ per case from the
Social Welfare Department. The Special Court after appreciating the
evidence in proper perspective has acquitted the accused vide the
impugned judgment, which does not suffer from any legal infirmity.
5. It may be noted that as per the settled legal position, the scope
of appeal against the judgment of the acquittal is very narrow and
R/CR.A/260/2020 ORDER
when two views are possible, the Appellate Court normally should not
disturb the findings of acquittal recorded by the Sessions Court.
Beneficial reference to the decision of the Supreme Court in case of
State of Rajasthan versus Ram Nivas reported in (2010) 15 SCC
463 be made in this regard wherein it has been held as under:
"6. This Court has held in Kalyan v. State of U.P. reported in
(2001) 9 SCC 632:
"8. The settled position of law on the powers to be
exercised by the High Court in an appeal against an order
of acquittal is that though the High court has full powers
to review the evidence upon which an order of acquittal is
passed, it is equally well settled that the presumption of
innocence of the accused persons, as envisaged under the
Criminal jurisprudence prevalent in our country is further
reinforced by his acquittal by the trial court. Normally the
views of the trial court, as to the credibility of the
witnesses, must be given proper weight and consideration
because the trial Court is supposed to have watch the
demeanor and conduct of the witnesses and is in a better
position to appreciate their testimony. The High Court
should be slow in disturbing a finding of fact arrived at by
the trial court. In Kali Ram. v. state of H.P., this Court
observed that the golden thread which runs through the
web of administration of justice in a criminal case is that
if two views are possible on the evidence adduced in the
case, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the
other to his innocence, the view which is favourable to the
accused should be adopted.""
6. In Arulvelu and another versus State reported in (2009) 10
Supreme Court Cases 206 the Supreme Court after discussing the
earlier judgments, observed in para No. 36 as under:
"36. Careful scrutiny of all these judgments lead to the definite
conclusion that the appellate court should be very slow in
setting aside a judgment of acquittal particularly in a case
where two views are possible. The trial court judgment can not
be set aside because the appellate court's view is more probable.
The appellate court would not be justified in setting aside the
trial court judgment unless it arrives at a clear finding on
R/CR.A/260/2020 ORDER
marshaling the entire evidence on record that the judgment of
the trial court is either perverse or wholly unsustainable in law."
7. In that view of the matter, the appeal being devoid of merits is
dismissed in limine.
(BELA M. TRIVEDI, J)
SINDHU NAIR
