Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Jyantibhai Rameshji Majirana on 22 April, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1822/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/04/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1822 of 2008
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE S.V. PINTO
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting No
==========================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
JYANTIBHAI RAMESHJI MAJIRANA & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS. JIRGA JHAVERI, APP for the Appellant(s) No. 1
BAILABLE WARRANT SERVED for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No.
1,2,3,4,5
MR VICKY B MEHTA(5422) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3,4,5
MS DIPMALA S DESAI(6596) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 6
==========================================================
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 Additional Sessions Judge, Second Fast Track
Court, Himmatnagar (hereinafter referred to as "the learned
Trial Court") in Special (Atrocity) Case No. 45/2007 on
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1822/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/04/2025
undefined
28.03.2008, whereby, the learned Trial Court has acquitted
the respondents for the offence punishable under Sections
147, 148, 149, 325, 323 and 504 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 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 Somabhai Ranchodbhai Bhambhi residing at Vaktapur
was working as a Security Guard in the New Market Yard at
Himmatnagar. On 08.07.2007 at around 09.30 pm, all the
accused formed an unlawful assembly and armed
themselves with sticks and while Somabhai Ranchodbhai
Bhambhi was checking the persons who were entering and
exiting the New Market Yard at the main gate, they shouted
at him and asked him why was he checking their tiffins
even though he was of a Bhambhi Caste. The accused no. 1
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1822/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/04/2025
undefined
caught hold of the collar of the shirt of Somabhai
Ranchodbhai Bhambhi and assaulted him with a stick on
his right hand and his right hand sustained a fracture. The
accused nos. 2 and 3 assaulted Somabhai Ranchodbhai
Bhambhi with sticks. The accused no. 4 assaulted him with
fists and the accused no. 5 hit his tiffin on the head of
Somabhai Ranchodbhai Bhambhi. All the accused hurled
abuses and caste slurs against Somabhai Ranchodbhai
Bhambhi and his wife Shantaben - wife of Somabhai
Ranchodbhai Bhambhi filed the complaint on 13.07.2007 at
the Himmatnagar Town Police Station which was registered
at Himmatnagar Town Police Station I - C.R. No. 80 of 2007
under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 504 of the IPC, Section
135 of the BP Act and Sections 3(1)(10) of the Atrocities Act.
2.2 The Investigating Officer recorded the statements of
the connected witnesses and seized the necessary
documents and after completion of investigation, a charge-
sheet came to be filed before the learned Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Himmatnagar and as the said offences against
the accused were exclusively triable by the Court of
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1822/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/04/2025
undefined
Sessions, the case was committed to the Special Court,
Himmatnagar as per the provisions of Section 209 of Code
of Criminal Procedure and the case was registered as
Special (Atrocity) Case No. 45/2007.
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. 5 was framed against the
accused and the statements of the accused were recorded at
Exhs. 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 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.
ORAL EVIDENCE
Sr. No. PW Name of the witness Exh.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1822/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/04/2025
undefined
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
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
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1822/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/04/2025
undefined
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
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.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1822/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/04/2025
undefined
4. Heard learned APP Ms. Jirga Jhaveri for the appellant
State and learned advocate Mr. Vicky Mehta for respondent
nos. 1 to 5 and learned av Ms. Dipmala Desai for
respondent no. 6. 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. Jirga Jhaveri and learned advocate
Ms. Dipmala Desai for the respondent no. 6 - original
complainant have taken this Court through the entire
evidence of the prosecution on record of the case and have
submitted that the complainant has fully supported the
facts of his complaint and the case is proved beyond
reasonable doubts by the prosecution. 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.
5.1 Learned advocate Mr. Vicky Mehta for the respondent
nos. 1 to 5 has submitted that the evidence has been
properly appreciated by the learned Trial Court and no
interference is required in the impugned judgement and
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1822/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/04/2025
undefined
order.
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
& 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".
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1822/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/04/2025
undefined
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
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
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1822/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/04/2025
undefined
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.
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.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1822/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/04/2025
undefined
8. In light of the above settled principle of law, the
evidence of the prosecution is dissected and the
prosecution has examined PW1 - Shantaben Somabhai
Bhambhi at Exh. 13. The witness is the complainant and
the wife of the injured Somabhai Ranchodbhai Bhambhi
and she has stated that her husband was working as a
Security Guard and all the accused had assaulted him.
That her son-in-law had given her the information about
the incident and on the day of the incident her son-in-law
had gone for his work and on the next day her husband
was taken to the hospital. He had sustained a fracture on
his right hand and he had to take five stitches on his head.
She filed the complaint which is produced at Exh. 14.
During the cross examination by the learned advocate for
the accused, the witness has stated that she has no
personal knowledge about the incident and she reached the
hospital at around 03.00 pm on the next day. That when
she had gone to the Police Station her son-in-law and two
sons were with her and she did not give her caste certificate
to the police at the time of filing of the complaint and the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1822/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/04/2025
undefined
police did not ask her for the caste certificate. Her son-in-
law is also working as a Security Guard at the same place
and his duty is from 08.00 am to 08.00 pm. That she had
not seen the market yard and after the incident her
husband is no longer working at Nava Market Yard,
Himmatnagar. The witness has also produced the caste
certificate at Exh. 15.
8.1 The prosecution has examined PW2 - Somabhai
Ranchhodbhai Bhambhini Exh. 16 and the witness is the
injured who has stated that on the date of the incident he
was working as a Watchman and he was kept for job as a
watchman by Vipulbhai Punjabhai Parmar on a monthly
salary of Rs. 2000/-. Vipulbhai had a contract of the
market yard and the contract is produced at Exh. 17. His
duty was from 08.00 pm to 08.00 am on the next morning
and on the date of the incident he was standing as a
Security Guard and was checking the tiffins of the persons
who were exiting the market. The accused had altercation
with him and hurled caste abuses at him and assaulted
him and he had sustained a fracture on his right hand
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1822/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/04/2025
undefined
below the wrist. He also had an injury on his head as he
was beaten with a tiffin on the head. That his son-in-law
came with his tiffin and witnessed the incident and shouted
and the accused also threatened to kill his son-in-law and
hence, he went away. That Vipulbhai came at around 10.00
pm and told him that he would take him to the hospital on
the next morning but Vipulbhai did not come and his son-
in-law came with a rickshaw and took him straight to
Himmatnagar Police Station. He was admitted to Civil
Hospital, Himmatnagar and operated upon his hand. He
does not know which persons had assaulted him and their
contractor was Jayantibhai Bhatt who caught the collar of
his shirt and the witness has identified the muddamaal
sticks and tiffin. During the cross-examination by the
learned advocate for the accused the witness has stated
that Vipulbhai Punjabhai Parmar is his son-in-law and
relative of his caste and contractor Jayantibhai and Jayanti
Manjhi Rana are two different persons. About 300
labourers are working in the market yard and after the
incident he has not gone for his job. That his son-in-law
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1822/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/04/2025
undefined
has also left the job. All the accused are of the Bhil
Community and he has not stated in his statement before
the police that the accused had threatened to kill his son-
in-law.
8.2 The prosecution has examined PW3 - Bipinbhai
Dhulabhai Parmar Exh. 18 and the witness is the son-in-
law of the complainant and the injured who has stated that
on 08.03.2007 at around 09.30 pm he had taken the tiffin
and gone to the main gate and the fight was going on. His
father-in-law had fallen down and he was being assaulted
with sticks and the tiffin by the labourer and he went and
intervened but he was told to go away or they would kill
him and he informed the superior officer about the same.
He was told that his father-in-law will be taken to the
hospital but he was not taken to the hospital and hence, in
the morning he took a rickshaw and went and took his
father-in-law to the hospital. They had gone to the Police
Station and his father-in-law was operated upon on his
hand. During the cross-examination by the learned
advocate for the accused, the witness has stated that
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1822/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/04/2025
undefined
Vipulbhai is his relative and when he went to meet his
father-in-law on the date of the incident, he did not speak
anything to his father-in-law. That he went away home and
at the time of the incident, he was on leave. The tiffin
shown to him is easily available in the market.
8.3 The prosecution has examined PW4 - Dr.
Bharatkumar Kalidas at Exh. 21 and the witness is the
Medical Officer who was working at Sir Pratap General
Hospital, Himmatnagar, District Sabarkantha on
09.03.2007, when the injured Somabhai Ranchhodbhai
Parmar was brought for treatment. The witness has stated
that he was admitted as an indoor patient and was
discharged on 27.03.2007 at 11.00 am. In the history, he
had stated that he was assaulted with lathis and tiffins by
seven to eight persons on 08.03.2007 at 09.00 pm at the
gate of the market yard. On examination, the following
injuries were found on him.
1. Contusion on right posterior aspect of forearm, 5 cm
x 2 cm in size, red in colour.
2. Contusion on posterior aspect of right side of the
chest, lower part, 7 cm x 2 cm in size, red in colour.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1822/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/04/2025
undefined
3. Abrasion on right nostril, irregular in size and
shape.
4. Abrasion on right parietal region, irregular size and
shape.
5. Contusion on right hypochondriac and epigastric
region, 10 cm x 2 cm in size, red in colour.
6. Abrasion on left side of the chest, irregular in size
and shape. 7. CLW on right temporal region, 5 cm x 2
cm into muscle deep/in direction.
8. DTS on right forearm and the x-ray of right forearm
with elbow showed fracture of right ulna.
The injuries could be caused by hard and blunt object
and during the cross examination by the learned advocate
for the accused, the witness has stated that he did not do
any follow up treatment of the injured and injury nos. 1 to
7 in the medical certificate produced at Exh. 23 were simple
in nature and injury no. 8 was a fracture. That if a person
was assaulted with a stick on the hand, there would be a
mark of the stick.
8.4 The prosecution has examined PW5 - Vipulkumar
Punjabhai Parmar at Exh. 24 and the witness is the
contractor of the Market Yard at Himmatnagar and has
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1822/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/04/2025
undefined
stated that on the date of the incident, he was called to the
office by his supervisor who told him that there was an
altercation between the guards and the labourers and he
went to the spot and saw that his guard was sitting and he
had sustained some injuries. The guard told him that he
was not much injured and he was taken to the hospital but
he was not injured. He does not know why the altercation
had taken place. The witness has not supported the case of
the prosecution and has been declared hostile and cross
examined at length by the learned APP but he has not
supported the case of the prosecution. During the cross
examination by the learned advocate for the accused, the
witness has stated that he was informed from the market
yard that guard Somabhai was drunk and he has no
personal knowledge about the incident.
8.5 The prosecution has examined PW6 - Jagdishbhai
Kohyabhai Solanki at Exh. 25 and the witness was working
as the Security Supervisor at the Market Yard,
Himmatnagar on the day of the incident. The witness has
stated that between 08.00 pm to 08.30 pm, he was seated
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1822/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/04/2025
undefined
in the office of Dadu Security near the market yard and
when he was called, he went to the place which was the
main gate and inquired from Ganibhai Clerk about the
incident who told him that somebody had assaulted his
guard and he had gone towards the backside of the
building and Somabhai did not tell him who had assaulted
him. The witness has not supported the case of the
prosecution and has been declared hostile and even though
as per the case of the prosecution, the witness was an
eyewitness to the incident, he has not supported the case of
the prosecution.
8.6 The prosecution has examined PW7 - Karansinh
Dalpatsinh at Exh. 26 and the witness was working as a
Security Guard in the market yard on the date of the
incident. The witness has stated that he was working in the
shed at the behind portion of the market yard and the clerk
at the gate called him and told him that some guard was
assaulted and to go attend duty at the gate but when he
went to the gate, there was no one and he had called
Vipulbhai and he saw Somabhai was injured. Somabhai
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1822/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/04/2025
undefined
had told him that he was checking the tiffins and hence, he
was beaten but he does not know the persons who had
assaulted them and he did not see who had assaulted
Somabhai. The witness has not supported the case of the
prosecution and has been declared hostile and has been
cross-examined by the learned APP but nothing to support
the case of the prosecution has come on record.
8.7 The prosecution has examined PW8 - Lalabhai
Pirabhai Vanzara at Exh. 27 and PW9 - Ahmedbhai
Nasirbhai Dhapa at Exh. 29 and both the witnesses are the
panch witnesses of the arrest panchnama by which the
accused were arrested which is produced at Exh. 28. Both
the witnesses have not supported the case of the
prosecution and have merely stated that they had affixed
their signature on a ready panchnama as per the say of the
police.
8.8 PW10 - Lavjibhai Kanabhai Pranam examined at Exh.
31 is the Investigating Officer who has narrated in detail all
the procedure that was undertaken by him during
investigation. During the cross-examination by the learned
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1822/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/04/2025
undefined
advocate for the accused the witness has stated that during
investigation it was found that the complainant was of the
Bhil community and hence, he was investigating the matter
as Bhil community is a Scheduled Tribe.
9. On reappreciation of the entire evidence of the
prosecution, the complainant PW1 - Shantaben Somabhai
Bhambi is not an eyewitness to the incident and she has
stated that her son-in-law had told her about the incident.
Her son-in-law PW3 - Bipinbhai Dhodabhai Parmar has in
his deposition stated that he did not speak anything when
he had gone to the place of incident with his father-in-law
and after the incident he had run away and did not take his
father-in-law to the hospital. There are many contradictions
in the versions of PW3 - Bipinbhai Dhodabhai Parmar and
the injured PW2 - Somabhai Ranchodbhai Bhambi and the
injured has not identified the accused during trial.
Moreover, as per the case of the prosecution PW5 -
Vipulbhai Punjabhai Parmar, PW6 - Jagdishbhai Koyabhai
Solanki and PW7 - Karansinh Dalpatsinh were all
eyewitnesses to the incident but all of them have turned
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1822/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/04/2025
undefined
hostile and have not supported the case of the prosecution
and hence, there is no independent eyewitness who has
deposed in favor of the complainant. Moreover, PW2 -
Somabhai Ranchodbhai Bhambhi has not specifically
stated the role of any one person and he has not stated
which of the accused had hurled caste slurs or threats at
him. The incident has occurred at around 09.30 in the
night and even though his son-in-law, PW3 - Bipinbhai
Dhudhabhai Parmar and PW5 - Vipulkumar Punjabhai
Parmar his superior and had employed him have not taken
him to the hospital and he has gone to the hospital on the
next day at around 11.15 am. Even before the Medical
Officer, he has not named the persons and in the entire
evidence of the prosecution, it has come on record that the
injured did not know the accused and during investigation,
no Test Identification Parade was conducted for
identification of the accused by the Executive Magistrate.
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
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1822/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/04/2025
undefined
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 Additional Sessions Judge, Second
Fast Track Court, Himmatnagar in Special (Atrocity) Case
No. 45/2007 on 28.03.2008 on 19.04.2010, is hereby
confirmed.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1822/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/04/2025
undefined
12. Bail bond stands cancelled. Record and proceedings
be sent back to the concerned Trial Court forthwith.
(S. V. PINTO,J)
VASIM S. SAIYED
