Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Yajuvendrasinh Pruthvisinh Jadeja on 22 April, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1174/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/04/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1174 of 2010
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE S.V. PINTO
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting No
==========================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
YAJUVENDRASINH PRUTHVISINH JADEJA & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
Ms. Dhwani Tripathi, APP for the Appellant(s) No. 1
BAILABLE WARRANT UNSERVED for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1
KETULKUMAR V PATEL(10121) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 3,4
RULE SERVED for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE S.V. PINTO
Date : 22/04/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. The appeal is filed by the appellant State under
Section 378(1)(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
against the judgement and order of acquittal passed by the
learned Special Judge (Atrocity) & Additional Sessions
Judge, Second Fast Track Court, Himmatnagar Camp at
Idar, (hereinafter referred to as "the learned Trial Court") in
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1174/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/04/2025
undefined
Special (Atrocity) Case No. 40/2008 on 19.04.2010,
whereby, the learned Trial Court has acquitted the
respondent for the offence punishable under Sections 504,
506(2) and 114 of IPC and Section 3(1)(10) of Schedule
Caste and Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,
1989 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act" for short).
1.1 During the pendency of the appeal, the respondent no.
1 has expired and his death certificate has been produced
on record by the Additional Senior Judge, Sabarkantha @
Himmatnagar dated 31.12.2022 which shows that the
respondent no. 1 has expired on 26.10.2015, hence the
appeal qua the respondent no. 1 stands abated.
1.2 The respondents are hereinafter referred to as "the
accused" as they stood in the original case for the sake of
convenience, clarity and brevity.
2. The brief facts that emerge from the record of the case
are as under:
2.1 The complainant - Khatrabhai Manjibhai Kharadi was
a resident of Nana Samera village of Bhiloda Taluka.
Samera Gram Panchayat consisted of three villages namely
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1174/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/04/2025
undefined
Nana Samera, Mota Samera and Rangpur Chhapra and in
December 2006, the Gram Panchayat elections were held
and Kalpanaben - the wife of the accused no. 1,
Yajuvendrasinh Pruthvisinh Jadeja was elected as the
Deputy Sarpanch of Samera Gram Panchayat. On
18.03.2008, a meeting of the Samera Gram Panchayat was
kept and the complainant - Khatrabhai Manjibhai Kharadi
was going for the meeting along with the other members of
the Panchayat including Arvindbhai Khemabhai Dodiyar,
Harishbhai Nathabhai Kharadi, Maganbhai Khatubhai
Kharadi, Somabhai Pannabhai Kharadi, etc. and at around
12.00 noon, while they reached near the field of Nanjibhai
Martabhai Kharadi, all the accused armed with sticks
cordoned the complainant and others; and abused them
and hurled caste slurs and told the complainant that he
should not be the Sarpanch and they would kill him if he
came into the village. They restrained him from going for the
meeting and the other members who were with him tried to
pacify the accused but they could not be pacified and the
complainant immediately called Shamlaji Police Station and
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1174/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/04/2025
undefined
Head Constable - Lakshmanbhai and four policemen came
to the place of incident and gave them protection and
brought them to the Samera Gram Panchayat. The
complainant gave an application at the Shamlaji Police
Station but no action was taken and even on the next day
i.e. on 19.03.2008, a written application was given at the
Shamlaji Police Station but the police did not take any
action and hence, the complainant filed a private complaint
before the Court of the Judicial Magistrate First Class,
Bhiloda under Sections 504, 506(2) and 114 of the IPC and
Section 3(1)(10) of the Atrocities Act on 28.03.2008. The
learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bhiloda was pleased
to pass an order under Section 156(3) of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 and sent the complaint towards
Shamlaji Police Station for investigation. After the report
was filed, the complaint came to be registered at Shamlaji
Police Station, M Case No. 5/08 under Sections 504, 506(2)
and 114 of IPC and Section 3(1)(10) of the Atrocities Act.
2.2 The Investigating Officer recorded the statements of
the connected witnesses and seized the necessary
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1174/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/04/2025
undefined
documents and after completion of investigation, a charge-
sheet came to be filed before the learned Judicial Magistrate
First Class, Bhiloda and as the said offences against the
accused were exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions,
the case was committed to the Sessions Court, Sabarkantha
at Himmatnagar as per the provisions of Section 209 of
Code of Criminal Procedure and the case was registered as
Special (Atrocity) Case No. 40/2008.
2.3 The accused was duly served with the summons and
the accused appeared before the learned Trial Court and it
was verified whether the copies of all the police papers were
provided to the accused as per the provisions of Section 207
of the Code. A charge at Exh. 3 was framed against the
accused and the statements of the accused were recorded at
Exhs. 4, 5, 6 and 7, wherein, the accused denied the
contents of the charge and the entire evidence of the
prosecution was taken on record.
2.4 The prosecution produced the following evidence to
bring home the charge against the accused.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1174/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/04/2025
undefined
ORAL EVIDENCE
Sr. No. PW Name of the witness Exh.
DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE
Sr. No. Particulars Exh.
2.5 After the learned APP filed the closing pursis, the
further statement of the accused under Section 313 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 were recorded, wherein,
the accused denied all the evidence of the prosecution on
record. The accused refused to step into the witness box or
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1174/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/04/2025
undefined
examine witnesses on their behalf and stated that a false
case has been filed against them. After the arguments of the
learned APP and the learned advocate for the accused were
heard, the learned Trial Court by the impugned judgement
and order was pleased to acquit all the accused from the
charges levelled against them.
3. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said
judgment and order of acquittal, the appellant - State has
filed the present appeal mainly stating that the impugned
judgment and order of acquittal passed by the learned Trial
Court is contrary to law and evidence on record and the
learned Trial Court has not appreciated the fact that all the
witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution and
during the cross-examination, nothing adverse has been
elicited in favor of the respondents. The case has been
proved beyond reasonable doubt and the prosecution has
successfully established the case against the respondents
and the judgment and order of acquittal is unwarranted,
illegal, and without any basis in the eyes of the law and the
reasons stated while acquitting the respondent are
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1174/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/04/2025
undefined
improper, perverse and bad in law. Hence the impugned
judgment and order passed by the learned Trial Court
deserves to be quashed and set aside.
4. Heard learned APP Ms. Dhwani Tripathi for the
appellant State and learned advocate Mr. K.V. Patel for the
respondents. Perused the impugned judgement and order of
acquittal and have reappreciated the entire evidence of the
prosecution on record of the case.
5. Learned APP Ms. Dhwani Tripathi has taken this Court
through the entire evidence of the prosecution on record of
the case and submitted that the complainant has fully
supported the facts of his complaint. The impugned
judgement and order is perverse and learned APP has urged
this Court to quash and set aside the same and find the
respondent guilty for the offences.
6. At the outset, before discussing the facts of the
present case, it would be appropriate to refer to the
observations of the Apex Court regarding the scope of
interference in acquittal appeals in the case of Chandrappa
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1174/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/04/2025
undefined
& Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka reported in 2007 (4) SCC
415, wherein, the Apex Court has observed as under:
Recently, in Kallu Vs. State of M.P. (2006) 10 SCC 313, this
Court stated:
"While deciding an appeal against acquittal, the power of
the Appellate Court is no less than the power exercised
while hearing appeals against conviction. In both types of
appeals, the power exists to review the entire evidence.
However, one significant difference is that an order of
acquittal will not be interfered with, by an appellate court,
where the judgment of the trial court is based on evidence
and the view taken is reasonable and plausible. It will not
reverse the decision of the trial court merely because a
different view is possible. The appellate court will also bear
in mind that there is a presumption of innocence in favour
of the accused and the accused is entitled to get the benefit
of any doubt. Further if it decides to interfere, it should
assign reasons for differing with the decision of the trial
court".
From the above decisions, in our considered view, the
following general principles regarding powers of 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 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 puts no
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1174/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/04/2025
undefined
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 emphasize 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 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.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1174/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/04/2025
undefined
7. The law with regard to acquittal appeals is well
crystallized and in acquittal appeals, there is presumption
of innocence in favour of the accused and it has finally
culminated when a case ends in an acquittal. The learned
Trial Court has appreciated all the evidence and when the
learned Trial Court has come to a conclusion that the
prosecution has not proved the case beyond reasonable
doubts, the presumption of innocence in favour of the
accused gets strengthened. There is no inhibition to re
appreciate the evidence by the Appellate Court but if after
re appreciation, the view taken by the learned Trial Court
was a possible view, there is no reason for the Appellate
Court to interfere in the same.
8. In light of the above settled principle of law, the
evidence of the prosecution is dissected and the
prosecution has examined PW1 - Khatrabhai Manjibhai
Kharadi at Exh. 14 and the witness is the complainant who
has narrated all the facts as stated by him in the complaint.
The complaint is produced at Exh. 15 and during the cross-
examination by the learned advocate for the accused, the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1174/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/04/2025
undefined
witness has stated that the people of the village and the
members of the District Panchayat and of the Gram
Panchayat had filed applications against him regarding
misappropriation of the development works before the
District Panchayat and Taluka Panchayat and a no
confidence motion was passed by all the members of the
Panchayat against him. That a meeting for no confidence
motion against him was held on 18.03.2008 at Mota
Samera at the Gram Panchayat Office and the Taluka
Panchayat Officer and the District Supply Officer and other
police personnel were present there. That on the basis of
this no confidence motion, the Taluka Development Officer
had taken the charge of the Sarpanch from him and had
ordered it to be with Deputy Sarpanch Kalpanaben
Yajuvendrasinh Jadeja.
8.1 The prosecution has examined PW2 - Maganbhai
Khatrabhai Kharadi Exh. 19 and the witness is the son of
the complainant who has supported the case of the
prosecution. During the cross-examination by the learned
advocate for the accused, the witness has stated that on the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1174/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/04/2025
undefined
date of the incident, a meeting to being no confidence
motion against his father was held at the Gram Panchayat
Office and he and his father have cases filed under Section
302 and 435 of the IPC against him. That he was in judicial
custody in both the cases.
8.2 The prosecution has examined PW3 - Arjunsinh
Javansinh Chauhan Exh. 20 and the witness was working
as the PSO at Shamlaji Police Station and he has registered
the complaint on the basis of the order of the Judicial
Magistrate First Class, Bhiloda. During the cross-
examination by the learned advocate for the accused, the
witness has stated that the complainant did not come to
the Police Station to file his complaint and no written
application was filed by the complainant prior to filing of
the complaint. That no complaint regarding any telephone
was also filed by the complainant at the Police Station.
8.3 The prosecution has examined PW4 - Somabhai
Dhanabhai Kharadi at Exh. 24 and the witness is an
eyewitness to the incident who was going along with the
complainant - Khatrabai Maganbhai Kharadi for the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1174/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/04/2025
undefined
meeting along with others. The witness has stated that he
was an eyewitness to the incident and during the cross-
examination by the learned advocate for the accused, the
witness has stated that he and the complainant are
relatives and he had come to the Court with the complaint
but he does not know the accused by names and he did not
record the names of the accused in his statement before the
Investigating Officer. That when the police were recording
his statement, Khatrabhai had recorded his statement and
told the police about his statement and all the members of
the Panchayat including Deputy Sarpanch Kalpanaben
Yajuvendrasinh had brought a no-confidence motion
against the complainant. That the members of the Gram
Panchayat and the people of the village had filed
applications against the complainant for misappropriation
of development works.
8.4 The prosecution has examined PW5 - Harishbhai
Nathabhai Kharadi at Exh. 25 and the witness is also an
eyewitness to the incident who was going along with the
complainant for the meeting. The witness has supported
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1174/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/04/2025
undefined
the case of the prosecution and during the cross-
examination by the learned advocate for the accused, the
witness has stated that he has not given the names of the
other accused except the accused no. 1. During the cross-
examination by the learned advocate for the accused, the
witness has stated that he has not named the other
accused except the accused no. 1 in his statement before
the police and at the place of incident, a number of persons
were on the road. That he has a murder case and a case
regarding burning of house against him pending before the
Court and the complainant is not working as the Sarpanch
presently as there is a no-confidence motion against him
and he has been removed as the Sarpanch.
8.5 The prosecution has examined PW6 - Arvindbhai
Nanjibhai Kharadi at Exh. 27 and the witness is the panch
witness of the panchnama of the place of offence which is
produced at Exh. 28. During the cross-examination by the
learned advocate for the accused, the witness has stated
that the complainant is his relative and he had come to the
court along with the complainant that he does not know
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1174/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/04/2025
undefined
what was written in the panchnama and he had merely
affixed his signature on the panchnama which is produced
at Exh. 28.
8.6 The prosecution has examined PW7 - Arvindbhai
Khemabhai Dodiyar at Exh. 29 and the witness has stated
that on the date of the incident, he was going along with the
complainant and others and when they reached the field of
Nanjibhai, some 2-3 persons came but no incident had
taken place. That they had gone for the meeting and
thereafter the accused no. 1 and the complainant had
verbal altercation and he left the place. The witness has not
supported the case of the prosecution and has been
declared hostile and has been cross-examined at length by
the learned APP but nothing to support the case of the
prosecution has come on record. During the cross-
examination by the learned advocate for the accused, the
witness has stated that he is a member of the Mota Samera
Gram Panchayat and there is a no-confidence motion
against the complainant as there are allegations of
misappropriation against him. The complainant and the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1174/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/04/2025
undefined
accused have a dispute between them regarding the
election of the Gram Panchayat.
8.7 The prosecution has examined PW8 - Khumansinh
Nanabhai Damor at Exh. 32 and the witness is the
Investigating Officer who has narrated in detail the
procedure undertaken by him during investigation of the
offence. During the cross-examination by the learned
advocate for the accused, the witness has stated that a no-
confidence motion was brought against the complainant
and the Taluka Development Officer, Bhiloda had by a
written order removed the complainant from the post of the
Sarpanch and the order of the Taluka Development Officer
is produced at Exh. 33. That he had not recorded the
statements of the persons who were present at the meeting
including the Taluka Development Officer, the Talati Cum
Mantri and the Supply Officers and no telephone call was
made by Khatrabhai Manjibhai on the date of the incident
at Shamlaji Police Station. During investigation, no
application given by Khatrabhai Manjibhai to Shamlaji
Police Station was found and near the place of incident is
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1174/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/04/2025
undefined
the water supply office and quarters and he has not
recorded the statements of any persons residing in the
quarters or the watchman at that place. No statements of
independent witnesses were recorded during investigation
and only the statements of the relatives of the complainant
have been recorded.
9. On reappreciation of the entire evidence of the
prosecution, it has come on record that there was a dispute
regarding the Gram Panchayat elections between the
complainant and the accused and Kalpanaben - the wife of
the accused no. 1 - Yajuvendrasinh Pruthvirajsinh Jadeja
was the Deputy Sarpanch. The members including the
Deputy Sarpanch had brought a no confidence motion
against the Sarpanch and there were allegations of
irregularities and misappropriation of the development
works of the Gram Panchayat and the complainant was
removed from the post of the Sarpanch by a written order
dated 02.05.2008 of the Taluka Development Officer which
is produced at Exh. 33. On 18.03.2008, a meeting was
called for bringing a no confidence motion against the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1174/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/04/2025
undefined
Sarpanch and as per the say of the complaint, the incident
has occurred on the same day but PW7 - Arvindbhai
Khemabhai Dodiyar who was along with the complainant
and others and was also a member of the Samira Gram
Panchayat and was going for the meeting has stated that no
incident as stated by the complainant had occurred.
Moreover, as per the say of the complainant immediately as
the incident occurred, he had telephoned Shamlaji Police
Station and Head Constable - Lakshmanbhai and four
other policemen had come to the place of incident and had
given them protection and had taken them to the Gram
Panchayat Office but during investigation no such
telephone call records have been produced on record and
the Investigating Officer - PW8 - Khumansinh Nanabhai
Damor has categorically stated that no such telephone call
details were found during investigation. Moreover, the
complainant has also stated that on 19.03.2008 he had
given a written application to the Shamlaji Police Station
but during investigation no such written application was
found by the Investigating Officer, hence, the say of the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1174/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/04/2025
undefined
complainant that the incident had occurred and he had
immediately thereafter telephoned the Shamlaji Police
Station and policemen had come to escort him and the
others to the Gram Panchayat Office and that he had given
an application on the next day regarding the incident at the
Shamlaji Police Station, is not proved. Moreover, as per the
say of the complainant all the accused were armed with
sticks but none of them were assaulted and there are no
independent witnesses examined before the learned Trial
Court. It has come on record that there are the quarters of
government employees and the watchman nearby the place
of incident and if any such incident would have taken place
they would have seen and heard the quarrel but their
evidence has not come on record. The Investigating Officer
has only recorded the statements of the relatives of the
complainant and no witnesses including the Taluka
Development Officer, the Talati Cum Mantri and the
District Supply Officers who were present at the meeting
have been examined before the learned Trial Court.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1174/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/04/2025
undefined
10. In view of the settled position of law in the decisions of
Chandrappa (supra), the learned Trial Court has
appreciated the entire evidence in proper perspective and
there does not appear to be any infirmity and illegality in
the impugned judgment and order of acquittal. The learned
Trial Court has appreciated all the evidence and this Court
is of the considered opinion that the learned Trial Court
was completely justified in acquitting the accused of the
charges leveled against them. The findings recorded by the
learned Trial Court are absolutely just and proper and no
illegality or infirmity has been committed by the learned
Trial Court and this Court is in complete agreement with
the findings, ultimate conclusion and the resultant order of
acquittal recorded by the learned Trial Court. This Court
finds no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment
and order and the present appeal is devoid of merits and
resultantly, the same is dismissed.
11. The impugned judgement and order of acquittal
passed by the learned Special Judge (Atrocity) & Additional
Sessions Judge, Second Fast Track Court, Himmatnagar
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1174/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/04/2025
undefined
Camp at Idar in Special (Atrocity) Case No. 40/2008 on
19.04.2010, is hereby confirmed.
12. Bail bond stands cancelled. Record and proceedings
be sent back to the concerned Trial Court forthwith.
(S. V. PINTO,J)
VASIM S. SAIYED
