Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Bachubhai Gamjibhai Sangod on 13 January, 2022
Bench: Sandeep N. Bhatt
R/CR.MA/20023/2021 ORDER DATED: 13/01/2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 20023 of 2021
In R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1668 of 2021
With
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1668 of 2021
==========================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
BACHUBHAI GAMJIBHAI SANGOD
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS CM SHAH, ADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR(2) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.H.VORA
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP N. BHATT
Date : 13/01/2022
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.H.VORA)
1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and
order of acquittal dated 3.3.2021 passed by the learned 2 nd Addl.
Sessions Judge, Dahod at Limkheda in Sessions Case No.47 of
2018 for the offences under sections 436, 427, 504 of IPC, the
applicant - State of Gujarat has preferred this application to
grant leave to appeal as provided under section 378(1)(3) of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ("the Code" for short) inter alia
challenging the judgment and order of acquittal in favour of the
respondent accused.
2. Briefly stated, the case of the prosecution is such that at
12:00 hrs. on 16.5.2018, the complainant and her younger son
Sukrambhai were present at home at village Pav Chhapri, Tal:
Dhanpur, Dist: Dahod. Adjacent to the home of the
R/CR.MA/20023/2021 ORDER DATED: 13/01/2022
complainant, one house was filled up with household material
and grass. At the time of incident, the complainant went out to
see her got and at that time, the respondent accused started to
give filthy abuses and said that her son Laxman has committed
rape on his daughter-in-law Kapila and therefore, wife of son of
the complainant should not stay in the village and will be driven
out and after utterance, the respondent ignited match stick and
thrown on the hut of Laxmanbhai and set it on fire. It is the
case of the complainant that as she tried to catch hold of the
respondent, he pushed her away and ran away towards his
house and therefore, on hearing her shouts, the husband of the
complainant, as well as her sons Sukrambhai and Varsingbhai
and others came at the place of the offence. Within short time,
as there was grass, it was not possible to extinguish the fire and
before fire brigade could reach the spot, the household material
as well as grass were damaged in fire. Therefore, the
complainant lodged the complaint with regard to the incident
before Dhanpur Police Station, which was registered as I - C.R.
No.41 of 2018 for the offences under sections 436, 427, 504 of
IPC.
3. In pursuance of the complaint lodged by the complainant,
investigating agency recorded statements of the witnesses,
collected relevant evidence in form of various Panchnamas and
other expert evidence for the purpose of proving the offence.
After having found material against the respondent accused,
charge-sheet came to be filed in the Court of learned JMFC,
Dhanpur. As said Court lacks jurisdiction to try the offence, it
committed the case to the Sessions Court, Limkheda as provided
under section 209 of the Code.
4. Upon committal of the case to the Sessions Court,
R/CR.MA/20023/2021 ORDER DATED: 13/01/2022
Limkheda, learned Sessions Judge framed charge at Exh.3
against the respondent accused for the aforesaid offence. The
respondent accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried
5. In order to bring home charge, the prosecution has
examined 09 witnesses and also produced and proved various
documentary evidence before the learned trial Court. The details
of the said witnesses and documentary evidence are as under:-
Sr. No. Name Exh.
Sr. No. Name Exh.
6. On conclusion of evidence on the part of the prosecution,
the trial Court put various incriminating circumstances
appearing in the evidence to the respondent accused so as to
obtain his explanation/answer as provided u/s 313 of the Code.
In the further statement, the respondent accused denied all
R/CR.MA/20023/2021 ORDER DATED: 13/01/2022
incriminating circumstances appearing against him as false and
further stated that he is innocent and false case has been filed
against him. After hearing both the sides and after analysis of
evidence adduced by the prosecution, the learned trial Judge
acquitted the respondent accused of the offences, for which he
was tried, as the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond
reasonable doubt.
7. We have heard learned APP Ms. Shah appearing for the
applicant State and have minutely examined the documentary
evidence provided to us by learned APP during the course of
hearing.
8. It appears that the son of the complainant is facing charge
of offence of rape committed upon the daughter-in-law of the
respondent accused. Baring this charge faced by the son of the
complainant, we have reassessed and reanalyzed the evidence
adduced before the learned trial judge. Learned APP could not
pinpoint her finger on evidence showing either identity or
number of houses belonging to the complainant's son
Laxmanbhai. For the reasons best known to the prosecution,
said Laxmanbhai is not examined nor any officers of the
competent authority are examined for the purpose of
identification and location of the house including its ownership
aspect. Not only that, no any evidence with regard to material
lying in the said house in question is placed on record. Apart
from it, there is no any iota of evidence shown by learned APP so
as to infer that the respondent accused has ignited match stick
on the hut and set it on fire. No any cogent, reliable and ocular
evidence surfaces on record. In this regard, we have carefully
reexamined the reasons and findings recorded by the learned
trial judge in para 22 of the impugned judgment. We have
R/CR.MA/20023/2021 ORDER DATED: 13/01/2022
noticed that the learned trial judge has threadbare analyzed and
examined the evidence thoroughly and rightly signed the
judgment of acquittal in favour of the respondent accused.
Under the circumstances, the learned trial Judge has rightly
acquitted the respondent accused for the elaborate reasons
stated in the impugned judgment, more particularly para 22
thereof, and we also endorse the view/finding of the learned trial
Judge leading to the acquittal.
9. It is a cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence that in
an acquittal appeal if other view is possible, then also, the
appellate Court cannot substitute its own view by reversing the
acquittal into conviction, unless the findings of the trial Court
are perverse, contrary to the material on record, palpably wrong,
manifestly erroneous or demonstrably unsustainable. (Ramesh
Babulal Doshi V. State of Gujarat (1996) 9 SCC 225). In the
instant case, the learned APP has not been able to point out to
us as to how the findings recorded by the learned trial Court are
perverse, contrary to material on record, palpably wrong,
manifestly erroneous or demonstrably unsustainable.
10. 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 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
R/CR.MA/20023/2021 ORDER DATED: 13/01/2022
plausible, and the same cannot entirely and effectively be
dislodged or demolished, the High Court should not disturb the
order of acquittal."
11. 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 learned 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 learned 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.
12. 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, no case is made out to interfere with the
impugned judgment and order of acquittal.
13. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above,
present application for leave to appeal fails and same deserves to
be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. In view of dismissal
of the application for leave to appeal, captioned Criminal Appeal
also deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed.
(S.H.VORA, J)
(SANDEEP N. BHATT,J)
SHEKHAR P. BARVE
