State Of Gujarat vs Hemlataben W/O Vinodbhai Savani
2022 Latest Caselaw 6264 Guj

     R/CR.A/1703/2012                                JUDGMENT DATED: 14/07/2022




              IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                        R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1703 of 2012


FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:


HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE ASHOKKUMAR C. JOSHI

==========================================================

1     Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed                     No
      to see the judgment ?

2     To be referred to the Reporter or not ?                              No

3     Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy                    No
      of the judgment ?

4     Whether this case involves a substantial question                    No
      of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution
      of India or any order made thereunder ?

==========================================================
                          STATE OF GUJARAT
                                Versus
               HEMLATABEN W/O VINODBHAI SAVANI & 4 other(s)
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS. JIRGA JHAVERI, APP for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR N R DESAI(6504) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3,4,5
MR P P MAJMUDAR(5284) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3,4,5
==========================================================

    CORAM:HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE ASHOKKUMAR C. JOSHI

                                 Date : 14/07/2022

                                 ORAL JUDGMENT

1. The present Appeal is preferred by the Appellant - State of

Gujarat under Section 378(1)(3) of the Criminal procedure Code,

1973, against the impugned judgment and order passed in Special

R/CR.A/1703/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/07/2022

(Atrocity) Case No. 9 of 2010 by the learned Special Judge - 2 nd

Additional Sessions Judge, Navsari dated 7.12.2012, recording the

acquittal of the Respondents / Original Accused Persons for the

charges under Sections 143, 323, 354, 504, 506(2) and 114 of the

Indian Penal Code, Section 3(1)(10) of the Scheduled Caste and

Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter

referred to as "the Atrocities Act").

2. The brief facts of the prosecution case is that PW-1 Lilaben

Harishben Jadav has registered a complaint with Navsari Town

Police Station, Navsari, being II-C.R. No. 23 of 2010 against the

Respondents / Original Accused stating therein that the Complainant

along with her family is residing at 102, Laxmi Apartment, Shanta

Devi Road, Navsari. Her husband was serving in the Aeru Canal

Department. She was having two daughters. The mother of the

Complainant was residing at Saraswati Apartment, Shanta Devi

Road, and in the same building, the Respondents / Original Accused

were residing earlier, hence, the Respondents / Original Accused

persons and the Complainant very well known to one another. That

on 2.2.2010, her two daughters went for a walk at Lunci Kui, at

about 6:30 P.M., her daughter viz. Tejal called the Complainant and

informed that the Appellant / Original Accused No.1 - Hemlataben

and Respondent / Original Accused No.5 - Sonamben quarreled with

them and beaten Tejal. Therefore, the Complainant and her

husband immediately went at the scene of offence and seen that

R/CR.A/1703/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/07/2022

the Respondents / Original Accused Nos. 1 and 5 were beating her

daughter, and during that period, other Respondents / Original

Accused Nos. 2,3 and 4 came there and gave feast and kick blows

along with filthy abuses relating to her caste. Because of that,

daughter of the Complainant viz. Tejal received injury and hence,

she was taken to hospital. Hence, the Complaint was lodged

against the accused persons.

3. Upon such FIR being filed, investigation started and the

Investigating Officer recorded statements of as many as 13

witnesses and produced number of documentary evidence, and

after completion of the investigation, Charge-sheet was filed against

the accused persons for the offences in question. The case was

committed to the Sessions Court and the learned trial Judge framed

the Charge. Since the accused did not plead guilty, trial was

proceeded against the accused. Vide impugned judgment and order

dated 7.7.2012, the learned trial Judge acquitted the accused

persons. Being aggrieved by the same, the State has preferred the

present appeal.

4. Heard, learned APP Ms. Jirga Jhaveri for the appellant - State

and learned Advocate Mr. Suraj Matieda for learned Advocate Mr.

P.P.Majmudar for the Respondents / Original Accused.

5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. Jirga Jhaveri has

R/CR.A/1703/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/07/2022

mainly contended that the learned trial Judge has erred in holding

that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable

doubt. The learned APP submitted that the impugned judgment of

the trial Court is based on presumptions and inferences and

thereby, it is against the facts and the evidence on record. The

learned APP further submitted that the learned trial Judge has failed

to appreciate the evidence on record in its true and proper

perspective and thereby, has erred in recording the acquittal of the

respondents - original accused.

6. Learned APP Ms. Jirga Jhaveri referred to the judgment and

order as well as the testimony of number of witnesses and also the

documentary evidence. Learned APP has submitted that the

judgment and order of acquittal passed by the learned Judge is

contrary to law, evidence on record and principles of natural justice,

hence the same deserves to be quashed and set aside by this

Hon'ble Court. It is further contended that the judgment and order

of acquittal passed by the Court of learned Judge is based on

inference not warranted by facts of the case and also on

presumption not permitted by law and that the learned Judge ought

to have seen that there are direct and indirect evidence connecting

Respondent with crime produced in this case. In spite of the fact,

learned Judge without appreciating oral as well as documentary

evidence on record of the case, straight way arrived at the

conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond

R/CR.A/1703/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/07/2022

reasonable doubt for the alleged offence under Sections Sections

143, 323, 354, 504, 506(2) and 114 of the Indian Penal Code,

Section 3(1)(10) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe

(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

7. Learned APP has further submitted that the learned Sessions

Judge has failed to appreciate that prosecution has proved its case

beyond reasonable doubt that the accused person, with intention to

insult the complainant in public at large, has given filthy abuse to

the complainant relating to his caste and beaten the complainant

and that the learned Sessions Judge has committed error in holding

that the incident has taken place in public and at the relevant point

of time, independent witnesses were available, inspite of the fact no

independent witnesses are examined by the prosecution, and

merely interested witnesses have been examined.

8. Learned APP Ms. Jirga Jhaveri has further submitted that the

learned Sessions Judge has committed error in giving undue

importance to minor omissions and contradictions in the evidence of

prosecution witnesses.

9. Learned APP has therefore submitted that the learned Judge

has committed error in giving undue weightage to minor omissions

and contradictions in the evidence of prosecution witnesses and

therefore the reasons given by the learned Judge while appreciating

R/CR.A/1703/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/07/2022

the evidence as well as while acquitting the accused are improper,

perverse and bad in law. Therefore, it is submitted that the present

Appeal may be allowed.

10. Learned Advocate Mr. Suraj Matieda for learned Advocate Mr.

P.P.Majmudar for the Respondents / Original Accused has heavily

contended that in the present case, the material placed is not

examined. Further, so longer as the injury is concerned, no external

mark is proved. Simultaneously, the name of the assailant is not

given in the history. Further, the complaint is late by three days

with no substantial explanation, and therefore, the learned Sessions

Judge has rightly arrived at the acquittal of the Respondents /

Original Accused Persons, and therefore, there is no requirement of

interference by this Hon'ble Court.

11. In view of the rival submissions made by the learned APP Ms.

Jirga Jhaveri for the Appellant - State of Gujarat and learned

Advocate Mr. Suraj Matieda for the Respondents / Original Accused,

it is required to be considered whether the impugned judgment and

order can be sustained or not.

12. Having heard the arguments advanced by the learned APP Ms.

Jirga Jhaveri for the Appellant - State and learned Advocate Mr.

Suraj Matieda for the Respondents / Original Accused, before we

advert to the merits of the case, it would be worthwhile to refer to

R/CR.A/1703/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/07/2022

the scope of this Appeal.

12.1 Before adverting to the facts of the case, it would be

worthwhile to refer to the scope of interference in acquittal appeals.

It is well settled by catena of decisions that an appellate Court has

full power to review, re-appreciate and consider the evidence upon

which the order of acquittal is founded. However, the Appellate

Court must bear in mind that in case of acquittal, there is prejudice

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 reaffirmed and strengthened by the trial Court.

12.2 Further, 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. Further,

while exercising the powers in appeal against the order of acquittal,

the Court of appeal would not ordinarily interfere with the order of

acquittal unless the approach of the lower Court is vitiated by some

manifest illegality and the conclusion arrive at would not be arrived

at by any reasonable person, and therefore, the decision is to be

characterized as perverse.

R/CR.A/1703/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/07/2022

12.3 Merely because two views are possible, the Court of appeal

would not take the view which would upset the judgment delivered

by the Court below. However, the appellate Court has a power to

review the evidence if it is of the view that the conclusion arrived at

by the Court below is perverse and the court has committed a

manifest error of law and ignored the material evidence on record.

That the duty is cast upon the appellate Court, in such

circumstances, to re-appreciate the evidence to arrive to just

decision on the basis of material placed on record to find out

whether the accused is connected with the commission of the crime

with which he is charged.

13. In Mallikarjun Kodagali (Dead) represented through

Legal Representatives v. State of Karnataka and Others,

(2019) 2 SCC 752, the Apex Court has observed that:

"The presumption of innocence which is attached to every accused gets fortified and strengthened when the said accused is acquitted by the trial Court. Probably, for this reason, the law makers felt that when the appeal is to be filed in the High Court it should not be filed as a matter of course or as matter of right but leave of the High Court must be obtained before the appeal is entertained. This would not only prevent the High Court from being flooded with appeals but more importantly would ensure that innocent persons who have already faced the tribulation of a long drawn out criminal trial are not again unnecessarily dragged to the High Court".

R/CR.A/1703/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/07/2022

14. Yet in another decision in Chaman Lal v. The State of

Himachal Pradesh, rendered in Criminal Appeal No. 1229 of

2017 on 03.12.2020, 2020 SCC OnLine SC 988 the Apex Court

has observed as under:

"9.1 In the case of Babu v. State of Kerala, (2010) 9 SCC 189), this Court had reiterated the principles to be followed in an appeal against acquittal under Section 378 Cr.P.C. In paragraphs 12 to 19, it is observed and held as under:

12. This Court time and again has laid down the guidelines for the High Court to interfere with the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the trial court. The appellate court should not ordinarily set aside a judgment of acquittal in a case where two views are possible, though the view of the appellate court may be the more probable one. While dealing with a judgment of acquittal, the appellate court has to consider the entire evidence on record, so as to arrive at a finding as to whether the views of the trial court were perverse or otherwise unsustainable. The appellate court is entitled to consider whether in arriving at a finding of fact, the trial court had failed to take into consideration admissible evidence and/or had taken into consideration the evidence brought on record contrary to law. Similarly, wrong placing of burden of proof may also be a subject-matter of scrutiny by the appellate court. (Vide Balak Ram v. State of U.P (1975) 3 SCC 219, Shambhoo Missir v. State of Bihar (1990) 4 SCC 17, Shailendra Pratap v. State of U.P (2003) 1 SCC 761, Narendra Singh v. State of M.P (2004) 10 SCC 699, Budh Singh v. State of U.P (2006) 9 SCC 731, State of U.P. v. Ram Veer Singh

R/CR.A/1703/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/07/2022

(2007) 13 SCC 102, S. Rama Krishna v. S. Rami Reddy (2008) 5 SCC 535, Arulvelu v. State (2009) 10 SCC 206, Perla Somasekhara Reddy v. State of A.P (2009) 16 SCC 98 and Ram Singh v. State of H.P (2010) 2 SCC 445)

13. In Sheo Swarup v. King Emperor AIR 1934 PC 227, the Privy Council observed as under: (IA p. 404) "... the High Court should and will always give proper weight and consideration to such matters as (1) the views of the trial Judge as to the credibility of the witnesses; (2) the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused, a presumption certainly not weakened by the fact that he has been acquitted at his trial; (3) the right of the accused to the benefit of any doubt; and (4) the slowness of an appellate court in disturbing a finding of fact arrived at by a Judge who had the advantage of seeing the witnesses."

14. The aforesaid principle of law has consistently been followed by this Court. (See Tulsiram Kanu v. State AIR 1954 SC 1, Balbir Singh v. State of Punjab AIR 1957 SC 216, M.G. Agarwal v. State of Maharashtra AIR 1963 SC 200, Khedu Mohton v. State of Bihar (1970) 2 SCC 450, Sambasivan v. State of Kerala (1998) 5 SCC 412, Bhagwan Singh v. State of M.P(2002) 4 SCC 85 and State of Goa v. Sanjay Thakran (2007) 3 SCC 755)

15. In Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka (2007) 4 SCC 415, this Court reiterated the legal position as under: (SCC p. 432, para 42)

"(1) An appellate court has full power to review, reappreciate and reconsider the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded.

R/CR.A/1703/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/07/2022

(2) The Code of Criminal Procedure, 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.

(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.

R/CR.A/1703/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/07/2022

(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. In Ghurey Lal v. State of U.P (2008) 10 SCC 450, this Court reiterated the said view, observing that the appellate court in dealing with the cases in which the trial courts have acquitted the accused, should bear in mind that the trial court's acquittal bolsters the presumption that he is innocent. The appellate court must give due weight and consideration to the decision of the trial court as the trial court had the distinct advantage of watching the demeanour of the witnesses, and was in a better position to evaluate the credibility of the witnesses.

17. In State of Rajasthan v. Naresh (2009) 9 SCC 368, the Court again examined the earlier judgments of this Court and laid down that: (SCC p. 374, para 20)

"20. ... an order of acquittal should not be lightly interfered with even if the court believes that there is some evidence pointing out the finger towards the accused."

18. In State of U.P. v. Banne (2009) 4 SCC 271, this Court gave certain illustrative circumstances in which the Court would be justified in interfering with a judgment of acquittal by the High Court. The circumstances include: (SCC p. 286, para 28) "(i) The High Court's decision is based on totally erroneous view of law by ignoring the settled legal position;

R/CR.A/1703/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/07/2022

(ii) The High Court's conclusions are contrary to evidence and documents on record;

(iii) The entire approach of the High Court in dealing with the evidence was patently illegal leading to grave miscarriage of justice;

(iv) The High Court's judgment is manifestly unjust and unreasonable based on erroneous law and facts on the record of the case;

(v) This Court must always give proper weight and consideration to the findings of the High Court;

(vi) This Court would be extremely reluctant in interfering with a case when both the Sessions Court and the High Court have recorded an order of acquittal." A similar view has been reiterated by this Court in Dhanapal v. State (2009) 10 SCC 401.

19. Thus, the law on the issue can be summarised to the effect that in exceptional cases where there are compelling circumstances, and the judgment under appeal is found to be perverse, the appellate court can interfere with the order of acquittal. The appellate court should bear in mind the presumption of innocence of the accused and further that the trial court's acquittal bolsters the presumption of his innocence. Interference in a routine manner where the other view is possible should be avoided, unless there are good reasons for interference."

   9.2      When the findings of fact recorded by a court can be
   held to         be    perverse      has     been    dealt       with       and
   considered in paragraph 20          of the aforesaid decision, which
   reads as under:







 R/CR.A/1703/2012                                           JUDGMENT DATED: 14/07/2022

"20. The findings of fact recorded by a court can be held to be perverse if the findings have been arrived at by ignoring or excluding relevant material or by taking into consideration irrelevant/inadmissible material. The finding may also be said to be perverse if it is "against the weight of evidence", or if the finding so outrageously defies logic as to suffer from the vice of irrationality. (Vide Rajinder Kumar Kindra v. Delhi Admn (1984) 4 SCC 635, Excise and Taxation Officer-cum- Assessing Authority v. Gopi Nath & Sons 1992 Supp (2) SCC 312, Triveni Rubber & Plastics v. CCE 1994 Supp. (3) SCC 665, Gaya Din v. Hanuman Prasad (2001) 1 SCC 501, Aruvelu v. State (2009) 10 SCC 206 and Gamini Bala Koteswara Rao v. State of A.P (2009) 10 SCC 636)."

            (emphasis supplied)

            9.3      It is further observed, after following the decision
            of     this   Court    in   the    case    of     Kuldeep           Singh       v.

Commissioner of Police (1999) 2 SCC 10, that if a decision is arrived at on the basis of no evidence or thoroughly unreliable evidence and no reasonable person would act upon it, the order would be perverse. But if there is some evidence on record which is acceptable and which could be relied upon, the conclusions would not be treated as perverse and the findings would not be interfered with.

9.4 In the recent decision of Vijay Mohan Singh v. State of Karnataka, (2019) 5 SCC 436, this Court again had an occasion to consider the scope of Section 378 Cr.P.C. and the interference by the High Court in an appeal against acquittal. This Court considered catena of decisions of this Court right from 1952 onwards. In paragraph 31, it is observed and held as under:

R/CR.A/1703/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/07/2022

"31. An identical question came to be considered before this Court in Umedbhai Jadavbhai (1978) 1 SCC

228. In the case before this Court, the High Court interfered with the order of acquittal passed by the learned trial court on reappreciation of the entire evidence on record. However, the High Court, while reversing the acquittal, did not consider the reasons given by the learned trial court while acquitting the accused. Confirming the judgment of the High Court, this Court observed and held in para 10 as under: (SCC p. 233)

"10. Once the appeal was rightly entertained against the order of acquittal, the High Court was entitled to reappreciate the entire evidence independently and come to its own conclusion.

Ordinarily, the High Court would give due importance to the opinion of the Sessions Judge if the same were arrived at after proper appreciation of the evidence. This rule will not be applicable in the present case where the Sessions Judge has made an absolutely wrong assumption of a very material and clinching aspect in the peculiar circumstances of the case."

31.1. In Sambasivan v. State of Kerala (1998) 5 SCC 412, the High Court reversed the order of acquittal passed by the learned trial court and held the accused guilty on reappreciation of the entire evidence on record, however, the High Court did not record its conclusion on the question whether the approach of the trial court in dealing with the evidence was patently illegal or the conclusions arrived at by it were wholly

R/CR.A/1703/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/07/2022

untenable. Confirming the order passed by the High Court convicting the accused on reversal of the acquittal passed by the learned trial court, after being satisfied that the order of acquittal passed by the learned trial court was perverse and suffered from infirmities, this Court declined to interfere with the order of conviction passed by the High Court.

While confirming the order of conviction passed by the High Court, this Court observed in para 8 as under: (SCC p. 416)

"8. We have perused the judgment under appeal to ascertain whether the High Court has conformed to the aforementioned principles. We find that the High Court has not strictly proceeded in the manner laid down by this Court in Ramesh Babulal Doshi v. State of Gujarat (1996) 9 SCC 225 viz. first recording its conclusion on the question whether the approach of the trial court in dealing with the evidence was patently illegal or the conclusions arrived at by it were wholly untenable, which alone will justify interference in an order of acquittal though the High Court has rendered a well-considered judgment duly meeting all the contentions raised before it. But then will this non- compliance per se justify setting aside the judgment under appeal? We think, not. In our view, in such a case, the approach of the court which is considering the validity of the judgment of an appellate court which has reversed the order of acquittal passed by the trial court, should be to satisfy itself if the approach of the trial court in dealing with the evidence was patently illegal or

R/CR.A/1703/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/07/2022

conclusions arrived at by it are demonstrably unsustainable and whether the judgment of the appellate court is free from those infirmities; if so to hold that the trial court judgment warranted interference. In such a case, there is obviously no reason why the appellate court's judgment should be disturbed. But if on the other hand the court comes to the conclusion that the judgment of the trial court does not suffer from any infirmity, it cannot but be held that the interference by the appellate court in the order of acquittal was not justified; then in such a case the judgment of the appellate court has to be set aside as of the two reasonable views, the one in support of the acquittal alone has to stand. Having regard to the above discussion, we shall proceed to examine the judgment of the trial court in this case."

31.2. In K. Ramakrishnan Unnithan v. State of Kerala (1999) 3 SCC 309, after observing that though there is some substance in the grievance of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the accused that the High Court has not adverted to all the reasons given by the trial Judge for according an order of acquittal, this Court refused to set aside the order of conviction passed by the High Court after having found that the approach of the Sessions Judge in recording the order of acquittal was not proper and the conclusion arrived at by the learned Sessions Judge on several aspects was unsustainable. This Court further observed that as the Sessions Judge was not justified in discarding the relevant/material evidence while acquitting the accused, the High Court, therefore, was fully entitled to

R/CR.A/1703/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/07/2022

reappreciate the evidence and record its own conclusion. This Court scrutinised the evidence of the eyewitnesses and opined that reasons adduced by the trial court for discarding the testimony of the eyewitnesses were not at all sound. This Court also observed that as the evaluation of the evidence made by the trial court was manifestly erroneous and therefore it was the duty of the High Court to interfere with an order of acquittal passed by the learned Sessions Judge.

31.3. In Atley v. State of U.P. AIR 1955 SC 807, in para 5, this Court observed and held as under: (AIR pp. 809-

10) "5. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that the judgment of the trial court being one of acquittal, the High Court should not have set it aside on mere appreciation of the evidence led on behalf of the prosecution unless it came to the conclusion that the judgment of the trial Judge was perverse. In our opinion, it is not correct to say that unless the appellate court in an appeal under Section 417 Cr.P.C came to the conclusion that the judgment of acquittal under appeal was perverse it could not set aside that order.

It has been laid down by this Court that it is open to the High Court on an appeal against an order of acquittal to review the entire evidence and to come to its own conclusion, of course, keeping in view the well- established rule that the presumption of innocence of the accused is not weakened but strengthened by the judgment of acquittal passed by the trial court which had the advantage of observing the demeanour of

R/CR.A/1703/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/07/2022

witnesses whose evidence have been recorded in its presence.

It is also well settled that the court of appeal has as wide powers of appreciation of evidence in an appeal against an order of acquittal as in the case of an appeal against an order of conviction, subject to the riders that the presumption of innocence with which the accused person starts in the trial court continues even up to the appellate stage and that the appellate court should attach due weight to the opinion of the trial court which recorded the order of acquittal.

If the appellate court reviews the evidence, keeping those principles in mind, and comes to a contrary conclusion, the judgment cannot be said to have been vitiated. (See in this connection the very cases cited at the Bar, namely, Surajpal Singh v. State AIR 1952 SC 52; Wilayat Khan v. State of U.P AIR 1953 SC 122) In our opinion, there is no substance in the contention raised on behalf of the appellant that the High Court was not justified in reviewing the entire evidence and coming to its own conclusions.

31.4. In K. Gopal Reddy v. State of A.P. (1979) 1 SCC 355, this Court has observed that where the trial court allows itself to be beset with fanciful doubts, rejects creditworthy evidence for slender reasons and takes a view of the evidence which is but barely possible, it is the obvious duty of the High Court to interfere in the interest of justice, lest the administration of justice be brought to ridicule."

(emphasis supplied)."

R/CR.A/1703/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/07/2022

15. To substantiate the charges levelled against the Accused

Persons, the prosecution has testified PW-1 - the Complainant -

Lilaben Harishben Jadav at Exh.14 wherein she tried to depose as

per the the complaint, but in the last part of her deposition,

specially in the end of paragraph 2, she has admitted that she has

not informed anyone for the so-called incident prior to the

registration of the present complaint. Further, it is also stated in the

deposition that the Police has taken signature on a plain paper and

in cross-examination she has admitted that when she received the

telephone of Tejalben, at that time, she has not informed that the

brother of Tejalben and Hemlataben was beating her. In short, the

allegation is not proved beyond reasonable doubt. On the contrary,

the material witness has signed on a plain paper. Further, it is also

admitted that there are so many persons who are residing in the

surrounding place of occurrence, and therefore, in absence of

evidnece of the independent witnesses, the learned Sessions Judge

has rightly arrived at the conclusion of benefit of doubt and

acquitted the Respondents / Accused Persons.

15.1 The Prosecution has examined PW-2 - Sureshbhai Balubhai at

Exh.16, who appears to be the panch and turned hostile. The

Prosecution has also examined PW-3 - Marutibhai Sindhubhai

Chopari at Exh.19 who has also turned hostile and not supported the

case of the prosecution. The Prosecution has also examined PW-4 -

Jitendrabhai Chintamani Dube at Exh.20 who has also not supported

R/CR.A/1703/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/07/2022

the prosecution case and turned hostile. The Prosecution has also

testified PW-5 - Vishwanath Raghwan Tunde at Exh.22 who has also

not supported the prosecution case and turned hostile. The

prosecution has also testified PW-6 - Harishbhai Govindbhai Jadav at

Exh.25. In his cross-examination, he has stated that there are so

many persons residing in the surrounding area of his apartment, but

he is not knowing anybody and on the captioned day he was

returning to the residence. Further, in cross-examination he has

admitted that he has not stated before the Police that the wife of

Vinodbhai, Hemaben and her two daughters Brijal and Sonal were

were beating. In short on scanning of material witnesses it does not

inspire confidence for proving the charges levelled against the

Accused Persons, and therefore, the learned Sessions Judge has

rightly arrived at the acquittal of the Accused Persons.

15.2 The Prosecution has also testified PW-7 - Kripaliben

Harishbhai Jadav at Ex.30. She has also not supported the case of

the prosecution in accordance with the allegations levelled upon the

Accused Persons and also admitted that she had not stated the

names of the concerned persons after she became conscious. The

Prosecution has also examined PW-8 - Cheljibhai Prabhujibhai Patel

at Exh.35. He was the Mamlatdar at the relevant time and

performed the duties as per his official duty. The Prosecution has

also testified PW-10 Dr. Ajaykumar Jankiprasad Sharma at Exh.38.

He has admitted that there were simple injuries and no history was

R/CR.A/1703/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/07/2022

given. However, by which weapon the injuries were caused, is also

not on record. Upon all such premises, the learned Sessions Judge

has rightly arrived at the acquittal of the Accused Persons. The

Prosecution has also examined PW-11 Dr. Nitinbhai Manilal Tandel

at Exh.43. He has admitted that the complaint might be an illusory.

Upon such premises, in the opinion of this Court, the learned

Sessions Judge has rightly arrived at the acquittal of the accused

persons.

16. Thus, on re-appreciation and reevaluation of the oral as well

as documentary evidence on record, as referred to herein above, it

transpires that there are contradictions and omissions in the

evidence of the prosecution witnesses. The learned trial Judge has

observed that on considering the evidence on record there appears

no trustworthy evidence on record to prove the charge levelled

against the accused and the prosecution has failed to bring home

the charges levelled against the accused inasmuch as the

ingredients of the offence alleged are not fulfilled. This Court has

gone through in detail the impugned judgment and order and found

that the learned trial Judge has meticulously considered the

depositions of all the witnesses and came to the conclusion that the

prosecution has failed to prove the case against the accused

beyond reasonable doubt and in the considered opinion of this

Court, the learned trial Judge has rightly come to such a conclusion,

which does not call for any interference at the hands of this Court.

R/CR.A/1703/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/07/2022

17. In view of the aforesaid discussion and observations, in the

considered opinion of this Court, the prosecution has failed to bring

home the charge against accused for want of sufficient material.

The findings recorded by the learned trial Judge do not call for any

interference. Resultantly, in fleri, the appeal fails and is dismissed

accordingly. Impugned judgment and order dated 7.12.2007, passed

in Special (Atrocity) Case No. 9 of 2010 by the learned Special Judge

- 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Navsari, recording the acquittal of

the Respondents / Accused Persons is confirmed. Bail bond, if any,

shall stand cancelled. R&P, if received, be transmitted back

forthwith.

(A. C. JOSHI,J)

65 / J.N.W