Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Sagar Rameshbhai Sorathiya on 1 August, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1453/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/08/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL (AGAINST ACQUITTAL) NO. 1453 of 2017
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE S.V. PINTO
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting No
==========================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
SAGAR RAMESHBHAI SORATHIYA & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS. C.M. SHAH, APP for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR DIPEN K DAVE(3296) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1
MRS REKHA H KAPADIA(2246) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE S.V. PINTO
Date : 01/08/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. The appeal is filed by the appellant State under
Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against
the judgement and order of acquittal passed by the learned
4th Additional Special Judge, Rajkot (hereinafter referred to
as "the learned Trial Court") in Special Case (Atro) No.
2/2010 on 29.07.2017, whereby, the learned Trial Court
has acquitted the respondent for the offence punishable
under Sections 323, 352 and 504 of Indian Penal Code,
1860 and Section 3(1)(10) of Schedule Caste and Schedule
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1453/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/08/2025
undefined
Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter
referred to as "the Atrocity Act" for short).
1.1 The respondent is hereinafter referred to as "the
accused" as he 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 - Sujataben wife of Priyankarbhai
Shakiya and the accused were neighbours and the accused
wanted to place a door in the wall facing the house of the
complainant and the officers of the Municipal Corporation
did not permit the accused to place the door and the
accused had a doubt that the complainant had informed the
officers of the Municipal Corporation about the door and
hence, on 17.12.2009 between 17.00 hours and 18.00
hours, the accused went to the house of the complainant
and caught her neck, pulled her gown, hurled caste slurs
against her and took a stone in his hand and attempted to
hit the complainant with the stone. The complainant filed
the complaint at the Malaviyanagar Police Station, Rajkot
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1453/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/08/2025
undefined
City under Section 323, 352 and 504 of the Indian Penal
Code and Section 3(1)(10) of the Atrocities Act which came
to be registered as Rajkot city Malaviyanagar Police Station I
- C.R. No. 182 of 2009.
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 Court of the Judicial
Magistrate First Class, Rajkot and as the said offences
against the accused were exclusively triable by the Court of
Sessions, the case was committed to the Sessions Court,
Rajkot as per the provisions of Section 209 of Code of
Criminal Procedure and the case was registered as Special
Case (Atro) No. 2/2010.
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. 11 was framed against the
accused and the statement of the accused was recorded at
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1453/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/08/2025
undefined
Exh. 12, wherein, the accused denied the contents of the
charge and the entire evidence of the prosecution was taken
on record.
2.4 The prosecution examined 14 witnesses and produced
14 documentary evidences on record in support of their
case. After the closing pursis was filed by learned APP, the
further statement of the accused under Section 313 of Code
of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was recorded, wherein, the
accused denied the evidence of the prosecution and refused
to step into the witness box but examined 2 witnesses in
support of his case. After the arguments of the learned
Additional Public Prosecutor and the learned advocate for
the accused were heard, the learned Trial Court by the
impugned judgement and order was pleased to acquit the
accused from the charges levelled against him.
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
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1453/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/08/2025
undefined
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 respondent. The case has been proved
beyond reasonable doubt and the prosecution has
successfully established the case against the respondent
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.
4. Heard learned APP Ms. C.M. Shah for the appellant
State, learned advocate Mr. Shubham Dave for learned
advocate Mr. Dipen Dave for the respondent no. 1 and
learned advocate Ms. Rekha Kapadia for respondent no. 2.
Perused the impugned judgement and order of acquittal and
have reappreciated the entire evidence of the prosecution on
record of the case.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1453/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/08/2025
undefined
5. Learned APP Ms. C.M. Shah and learned advocate Ms.
Rekha Kapadia for the respondent no. 2 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. 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. Shubham Dave for learned
advocate Mr. Dipen Dave for the respondent no. 1 has
submitted that the learned Trial Court has appreciated the
evidence and passed the impugned judgement and order
and no interference is required hence, the appeal may be
rejected.
6. 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
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1453/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/08/2025
undefined
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.
7. To bring home the charge against the accused, the
prosecution has examined PW1 - Sujataben Priyankarbhai
Shakiya at Exh. 14 and the witness is the complainant who
has narrated the facts as stated in the complaint produced
at Exh. 15. The complainant has produced her caste
certificate at Exh. 17 and a copy of the Gazette at Exh. 18,
wherein, the complainant was earlier known as Ushaben
Channabhai Solanki and thereafter, she had changed her
name to Sujata Priyankar Sakhiya. In the evidence, it has
emerged that the complainant was following Buddhist
religion and the caste certificate was issued from
Ahmedabad. In the cross-examination, the complainant has
admitted that on the day of the incident, the employees had
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1453/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/08/2025
undefined
come to fix the gas pipelines behind the house of the
accused and the complainant had an altercation with them
and she had objected to the same and hence, the employees
who had come to fit the gas pipeline had gone away.
7.1 PW2 - Tusharbhai Govindbhai Padaya examined at
Exh. 26 and PW3 - Jashminbhai Vrujlal Dangar examined
at Exh. 28 are the panch witnesses of the panchnama of
the place of offence which is produced at Exh. 27
7.2 PW4 - Virajbhai Rajubhai Solanki examined at Exh. 29
is the panch witness of the arrest panchnama which is
produced at Exh. 30
7.3 PW5 - Bhavnaben Vinodbhai Parmar examined at Exh.
34 is an eyewitness as per the case of the prosecution but
the witness has not supported the case of the prosecution
and she has been declared hostile. During the cross-
examination by the learned advocate for the accused, the
witness has stated that she has studied up to class 4 or 5
and the complainant is of her caste. When the police had
come, she had gone to the house of the complainant but she
does not know what procedure was done by the police. She
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1453/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/08/2025
undefined
does not know any neighbours and the police were outside
of the house of the complainant. The witness has also
admitted that the incident has not taken place in her
presence and she was at her house at the time of the
incident.
7.4 PW6 - Hiraben Tejabhai Parmar examined at Exh. 35
is a neighbour of the complainant and she has supported
the case of the prosecution. During the cross-examination,
she has stated that her house is the third house from the
house of the complainant and earlier she had not seen the
accused. She has not seen where the accused is residing
and she was at the place of incident for about ten minutes
but during that time the police did not come. The witness
has also admitted that while she came the incident had
already concluded and no incident had occurred after she
had gone to the spot.
7.5 PW7 - Vimlaben Rameshchandra Vaghela examined at
Exh. 36 is the neighbour and eyewitness to the incident and
she has supported the case of the prosecution but during
the cross-examination she has admitted that she does not
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1453/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/08/2025
undefined
know where the accused resides and at the time of the
incident, the family members of the complainant were not
present. The police did not call her to the Police Station and
she was not called by the police at any time.
7.6 PW8 - Vipulbhai Kishorebhai Makwana examined at
Exh. 37 is the friend of the son of the complainant but he
has stated that he was at his friend's house and thereafter,
he had gone home. He was with his friend i.e. the son of the
complainant till 7.30 pm in the evening and he did not go to
the hospital. He did not see the complainant injured and he
does not know what was the complaint about.
7.7 PW9 - Sinotbhai Priyankarbhai Shakiya examined at
Exh. 38 is the son of the complainant and during the cross-
examination he has admitted that in the morning when the
employees had come to lay the gas pipeline, he was not
present and on the day of the incident his father was in
Rajkot. His father is working in the bank and he was never
called to the Police Station for recording his statement.
7.8 PW10 - Aaluben Kanabhai Muchhadiya examined at
Exh. 39 is a neighbour of the complainant but she has not
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1453/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/08/2025
undefined
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.
7.9 PW11 - Bahadursinh Ravubha Jadeja examined at
Exh. 40 is the PSO who has registered the complaint.
7.10 PW12 - Dr. Dineshbhai Maganlal Chauhan examined
at Exh. 46 is the Medical Officer who has examined the
complainant on 17.12.2009 at Yash Hospital. The witness
has produced the injury certificate of the complainant at
Exh. 47 and has stated that Sujataben Priyankarbhai
Shakiya had come to the hospital having a soft tissue injury
on the right foot and an injury on the right knee. The
medical certificate at Exh. 47 does not give any history
except that it was an assaulted injury and the approximate
period of recovery was 6 to 8 weeks. During the cross-
examination the witness has admitted that he has not
mentioned the time when the patient had come to the
hospital, the history or the weapon that was used. The
witness has also admitted that the injuries on the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1453/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/08/2025
undefined
complainant could be self-inflicted injuries also.
7.11 PW13 - Babubhai Kanjibhai Chaudhary examined at
Exh. 48 is the PSI who has recorded the complaint of the
complainant and during the cross-examination he has
admitted that the complainant did not bring her caste
certificate when she had come to file the complaint.
7.12 PW14 - Vijaysinh Laxmansinh Chauhan examined at
Exh. 50 is the Investigating Officer who has narrated all the
procedure undertaken by him during investigation. During
cross-examination the witness has admitted that there was
a dispute about the gas pipeline on the day of the incident
but he has not verified the same from the Municipal
Corporation about the gas pipeline. Even in the complaint,
the complainant has stated about the gas pipeline but the
same has not been investigated and the complainant did not
submit her caste certificate at the time of filing of the
complaint or while her statement was recorded. The caste
certificate of the complainant has not been verified from the
Social Welfare Officer at Ahmedabad and he has not made
any investigation regarding the Gazette.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1453/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/08/2025
undefined
8. After the closing pursis was filed by the learned APP at
Exh. 53, the further statement of the accused was recorded
under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
wherein the accused denied all the evidence of the
complainant and refused to step into the witness box but
stated that he wanted to examine two witnesses in his
defence and further stated that he was innocent and a false
case has been filed against him. The accused has further
stated that the complainant has made illegal construction
and the Municipal Corporation has given a notice to the
complainant for removal of the illegal construction and as
the complainant had a doubt on him, a false complaint has
been filed.
9. The accused has examined Defence Witness No. 1 -
Jayendrabhai Kantilal Balambia at Exh. 55 and the witness
is the Assistant Town Planner in Rajkot Municipal
Corporation. The witness has stated that a notice to remove
the illegal construction was given to Priyankarbhai Shakya
on 10.03.2011 and an encroachment was also made by
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1453/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/08/2025
undefined
Priyankarbhai and an application was filed by Rameshbhai
Soratia on 03.06.2011 against Priyankarbhai Shakiya.
9.1 Defence Witness No. 2 - Bharatbhai Chhaganbhai
Babariya examined at Exh. 63 is a member of Nehrunagar
Housing Cooperative Society and he has stated that the
society had given a no objection certificate to Nainaben
Rameshbhai Soratia which is produced at Exh. 65.
10. On minute appreciation of the entire evidence of the
prosecution, it has emerged on record that there is a civil
dispute pending between the parties about the area
between their houses and on the day of the incident, in the
morning, the employees had come to fix the gas pipeline
but the complainant had an altercation with them and the
employees had gone off without laying the gas pipeline. It
has also emerged on record that there are civil disputes
pending between the parties and a notice was given to the
husband of the complainant for removal of the illegal
construction that is being done by them. The complainant
has in the examination in chief stated that she had
sustained a fracture on her right leg and she had taken
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1453/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/08/2025
undefined
treatment for 15 days at Yash Hospital but if the medical
evidence is perused, the Medical Officer - PW12 - Dr.
Dineshbhai Maganlal Chauhan examined at Exh. 46 has
stated that the complainant had a soft tissue injury on the
right foot and an injury on the knee joint and she was
treated as an OPD patient on 17.12.2009. She was not
treated as an indoor patient and there is no iota of evidence
that the complainant had sustained a fracture on her right
leg. If the entire evidence is perused, there is exaggeration
in the evidence of the complainant and the eyewitnesses
have not supported the case of the prosecution, even
though they were neighbours of the complainant and as per
the case of the prosecution, had witnessed the incident. The
caste certificate of the complainant is also not proved and
the Investigating Officer has clearly stated that he did not
verify the caste certificate of the complainant and she had
not submitted the caste certificate at the time of filing of the
complaint as also when her further statement was
recorded. Moreover, the incident has occurred because of
the gas pipeline that was to be laid between the houses of
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1453/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/08/2025
undefined
the complainant and the accused but the Investigating
Officer has categorically stated that he did not inquire
anything about any gas pipeline that was to be laid behind
the house of the accused.
11. In view of the settled position of law in a catena of
decisions of the Apex Court, 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
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1453/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/08/2025
undefined
and order and the present appeal is devoid of merits and
resultantly, the same is dismissed.
12. The impugned judgement and order of acquittal
passed by the learned 4th Additional Special Judge, Rajkot
(hereinafter referred to as "the learned Trial Court") in
Special Case (Atro) No. 2/2010 on 29.07.2017, is hereby
confirmed.
13. Bail bond stands cancelled. Record and proceedings
be sent back to the concerned Trial Court forthwith.
Sd/-
(S. V. PINTO,J)
VASIM S. SAIYED
