Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Chaudhari Vinodbhai Daljibhai on 25 April, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/544/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/04/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 544 of 2007
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE S.V. PINTO
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting No
==========================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
CHAUDHARI VINODBHAI DALJIBHAI & 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
MR PANKAJ S CHAUDHARY(3269) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No.
1,2,3
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE S.V. PINTO
Date : 25/04/2025
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), Mehsana (hereinafter
referred to as "the learned Trial Court") in Special Atrocity
Case No. 42/2006 on 21.12.2006, whereby, the learned
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/544/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/04/2025
undefined
Trial Court has acquitted the respondent for the offence
punishable under Sections 323, 324, 427, 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 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 On 01.06.2006 at about 07.00 pm, the complainant -
Hemantbhai Hargovanbhai Chauhan had gone to the paan
shop of Narsibhai Ambaram Prajapati at village Mandali,
Taluka Kheralu and at that time, the accused came to him
and asked him why he was standing at the crossroads and
why was he making fun of the girls. The complainant told
them that he was not making fun of anyone and all the
accused got angry and started abusing the complainant and
his younger brother Bharatbhai and when Bharatbhai told
them not to abuse, the accused no. 2 took a wooden bat and
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/544/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/04/2025
undefined
hit the complainant on the left side of his head and the bat
broke and a piece of the bat was struck on the left cheek of
the complainant. The younger brother of the complainant
Bharatbhai intervened and the accused no. 1 gave him a
blow with a stick on his right shoulder and the accused no.
3 assaulted the complainant with fists and the clothes of
Bharatbhai were torn and his spectacles were broken. The
accused abused them and threatened to kill them and also
hurled caste slurs and hence, the complainant filed the
complaint on the same day at around 23.30 hours at the
Kheralu Police Station under Sections 324, 323, 506(2), 427
and 114 of the IPC and Section 3(1)(10) of the Atrocities Act
which was registered at Kheralu Police Station I - C.R. No.
69 of 2006.
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 Judicial Magistrate
First Class, Kheralu and as the said offences against the
accused were exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions,
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/544/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/04/2025
undefined
the case was committed to the Sessions Court, Mehsana as
per the provisions of Section 209 of Code of Criminal
Procedure and the case was registered as Special Atrocity
Case No. 42/2006.
2.3 The accused were 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. 2 was framed against the
accused and the statements of the accused were recorded at
Exhs. 3, 4 and 5, 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.
Hargovanbhai
Hargovanbhai
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/544/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/04/2025
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
heard, the learned Trial Court by the impugned judgement
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/544/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/04/2025
undefined
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/544/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/04/2025
undefined
4. Heard learned APP Ms. Jirga Jhaveri for the appellant
State and learned advocate Mr. Pankaj Chaudhary 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. Jirga Jhaveri has taken this Court
through the entire evidence of the prosecution on record of
the case and has 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.
5.1 Learned advocate Mr. Pankaj Chaudhary for the
respondents has submitted that the evidence has been
properly appreciated by the learned Trial Court and no
interference is required in the impugned judgement and
order.
6. At the outset, before discussing the facts of the
present case, it would be appropriate to refer to the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/544/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/04/2025
undefined
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".
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/544/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/04/2025
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.
7. The law with regard to acquittal appeals is well
crystallized and in acquittal appeals, there is presumption
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/544/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/04/2025
undefined
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 - Dr. Jitendra Kumar
Gangaram Meena at Exh. 7 and the witness was working as
the Medical Officer at the Referral Hospital and Community
Health Centre, Kheralu on 01.06.2006. The witness has
stated that at around 09.00 pm, Hemantbhai Hargovanbhai
Chauhan was brought without police yadi for treatment
with a history of assault injury and he has stated that he
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/544/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/04/2025
undefined
was beaten with a hockey bat. On examination, the injured
had a CLW at head on the parietal region 1.5 cm x 0.5 cm x
superficially approximately, there was DTS behind the left
ear region 1 cm x 1 cm approximately and there was a red
contusion on the left cheek region 1 cm x 1 cm
approximately. The injuries were with a hard and blunt
object and simple in nature and fresh and the patient
would recover within 5 to 8 days. At the same time,
Bharatbhai Hargovanbhai Chauhan was also brought
without a police yadi with a history of assault injury with a
bat and on examination there was a red contusion on the
right shoulder region 2 cm x 1 cm approximately. The
injuries could be sustained with a hard and blunt object
and the injury was fresh simple and recovery would be
within 3 to 5 days. The witness has produced the medical
certificates of Hemantbhai Hargovanbhai Chauhan at Exh.
8 and the medical certificate of Bharatbhai Hargovanbhai
Chauhan at Exh. 9. During the cross-examination by the
learned advocate for the accused the witness has stated
that the mother of the injured had come with him and the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/544/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/04/2025
undefined
history was given by the patients themselves and by their
mother. Injury no. 2 of injured Hemantbhai was not visible
and the injuries could be sustained when a man who was
walking falls down and hurts himself with a stone. There
was no injury on the nose of Hemantbhai and if a person
dashes against the door, the injury sustained by injured
Bharatbhai on the shoulder could be sustained. The
certificates do not mention the person who had given the
history.
8.1 The prosecution has examined PW2 - Hemantkumar
Hargovanbhai Chauhan at Exh. 10 and the witness is the
complainant who has filed the complaint which is produced
at Exh. 11. The witness has fully supported the contents of
the complaint and has also produced the caste certificate at
Exh. 12. During the cross examination by the learned
advocate for the accused the witness has stated that he
knows the accused as they are residing in the same village
and at the time of the incident as it was rainy season there
was no electricity in the village and it was dark. He was
standing at the paan shop of Narsibhai Prajapati and his
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/544/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/04/2025
undefined
brother was at the private milk dairy of Bashirbhai which
was at a distance of about 50 feet from the paan shop. His
brother Bharat had come 5 to 10 minutes after the incident
and the verbal altercation went on for 5 to 10 minutes.
There were no other persons at that place and the time for
the village people to fill the milk in the milk society is
between 05.00 pm to 07.00 pm. At the time of the incident
about 30 to 40 persons had gathered together and his
mother was at home. He had immediately gone to the Police
Station after the incident and had thereafter, gone to the
civil hospital after one hour. He did not inform the doctor
about how he was injured but his mother had informed the
doctor about the same and after taking treatment at the
hospital he had gone to the Police Station. The shop of
Narsibhai Prajapati and Dineshbhai are near the place of
incident.
8.2 The prosecution has examined PW3 - Bharatkumar
Hargovanbhai Chauhan and the witness is the injured and
brother of the complainant who has supported the case of
the prosecution. During the cross-examination by the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/544/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/04/2025
undefined
learned advocate for the accused the witness has stated
that the distance between the private dairy of Bashir Khan
and the pan shop of Narsibhai is about 100 feet and about
50 persons had gathered at the time of the incident. The
milk society is situated about 30 feet away and a number of
persons came running from the milk society. At the time of
the incident, it was rainy season and dark.
8.3 The prosecution has examined PW4 - Veerabhai
Sendhabhai Senma at Exh. 14 and the witness is the panch
witness of the panchnama of the place of offence which is
produced at Exh. 15. The witness has fully supported the
case of the prosecution and has stated that the panchnama
was drawn on 02.06.2006 between 09.00 am and 09.30
am.
8.4 The prosecution has examined PW5 - Maheshkumar
Narayanbhai Chaudhary at Exh. 16 and PW6 Jayantibhai
Mansangbhai at Exh. 17. Both the witnesses are the panch
witnesses of the arrest panchnama whereby the accused
were arrested which is produced at Exh. 21. The witnesses
have not supported the case of the prosecution and have
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/544/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/04/2025
undefined
been declared hostile and have been cross-examined at
length by the learned APP but nothing to support the case
of the prosecution has come on record.
8.5 The prosecution has examined PW7 - Mayanksinh
Ajitsinh Chaudhary at Exh. 18 and the witness is the
Investigating Officer who has narrated in detail the
procedure undertaken by him during investigation. During
the crossexamination by the learned advocate for the
accused the witness has stated that the shop of Narsibhai
Prajapati is near the place of incident and there are two
three other shops nearby. Bashir Khan's dairy is also
situated nearby and the place is a public place where a
number of persons from the village pass by. The statement
of Bharatbhai was recorded on the basis of the complaint.
9. On minute appreciation of the entire evidence of the
prosecution in the evidence it has come on record that at
the time of the incident which was around 07.00 pm, it was
rainy season and dark and the incident has taken place on
the public road where the shops of Narsibhai Prajapati,
Dineshbhai and the private dairy of Bashir Khan are
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/544/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/04/2025
undefined
situated. Nearby the place of incident is also the milk
society and the time for depositing milk in the society is
between 05.00 pm and 07.00 pm and in the evidence it has
also emerged that about 30 to 40 persons had gathered at
the place of incident. The complainant examined as PW2 at
Exh. 10 and his brother Bharatkumar Hargovanbhai
Chauhan examined at Exh. 13 are the only witnesses who
have been examined by the prosecution and even though
30 to 40 persons had gathered, no independent witnesses
have been examined before the learned Trial Court. The
complainant and his brother merely say that the accused
were hurling abuses but they have not stated as to what
abuses were used by the accused at the time of the incident
and which of the particular accused had used which caste
slur. The Investigating Officer has recorded the statement of
Narsibhai Ambarambhai Prajapati but he has not been
examined as a witness before the learned Trial Court and
immediately after the incident the complainant and his
brother Bharatbhai had gone for treatment to the Referral
Hospital and Community Health Center at Kheralu but they
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/544/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/04/2025
undefined
have not named the persons who have assaulted them. The
complainant has admitted that he is known to the accused
as they are residing in the same village and as per the
complaint the spectacles of witness Bharatbhai
Hargovanbhai Chauhan were broken and the clothes were
torn but no such spectacles or clothes have been seized as
muddamaal and in the entire evidence there is no evidence
that the accused were present at the place of incident and
the incident has occurred wherein the accused have
assaulted the complainant and witness Bharatbhai and had
hurled caste abuses against them.
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
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/544/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/04/2025
undefined
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), Mehsana in
Special Atrocity Case No. 42/2006 on 21.12.2006, 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
