Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Vejabhai Gangabhai Sutreja on 2 August, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1053/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/08/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1053 of 2012
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE S.V. PINTO
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting No
==========================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
VEJABHAI GANGABHAI SUTREJA & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS. C.M. SHAH, APP for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR RUTURAJ NANAVATI(5624) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1,2
RULE SERVED for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 3
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE S.V. PINTO
Date : 02/08/2025
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
Special Judge and 7th Additional Sessions Judge, Junagadh
(hereinafter referred to as "the learned Trial Court") in
Atrocity Sessions Case No. 28/2010 on 05.04.2012,
whereby, the learned Trial Court has acquitted the
respondents for the offence punishable under Sections 323,
504, 506(2) and Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1053/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/08/2025
undefined
and Section 3(1)(10) of Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to
as "the Atrocity Act" for short).
1.1 The respondents are hereinafter referred to as "the
accused" in the rank and file 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 25.06.2010, at around 08.30 am, the complainant
- Amrabhai Meghabai Singal had gone to his agricultural
field situated in the Naredi village with his wife Rasilaben
Amrabhai Singal and son Rajeshbhai Amrabhai Singal and
found that the accused whose field is adjoining the field of
the complainant had broken the edge of the field and were
diverting gutter water into the field of the complainant. The
complainant asked the accused why they were doing so and
the accused got angry and assaulted the complainant and
hurled caste slurs against the complainant. The
complainant - Amrabhai Meghabai Singal filed a complaint
at the Vanthali Police Station under Section 323, 504,
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1053/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/08/2025
undefined
506(2) and 114 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section
3(1)(10) of the Atrocity Act which came to be registered
Vanthali Police Station II - C.R. No. 3059 of 2010.
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, Vanthli and as the said offences
against the accused were exclusively triable by the Court of
Sessions, the case was committed to the Sessions Court,
Junagadh as per the provisions of Section 209 of Code of
Criminal Procedure and the case was registered as Atrocity
Sessions Case No. 28/2010.
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. 1 was framed against the
accused and the statement of the accused was recorded at
Exhs. 2 and 3, wherein, the accused denied the contents of
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1053/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/08/2025
undefined
the charge and the entire evidence of the prosecution was
taken on record.
2.4 The prosecution examined 9 witnesses and produced
10 documentary evidences on record in support of their
case and after the learned Additional Public Prosecutor filed
the closing pursis, the further statement of the accused
under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
was recorded and 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 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
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1053/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/08/2025
undefined
elicited in favor of the respondent. 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 respondents 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. Ruturaj Nanavati for the
respondent nos. 1 and 2. Though served, the respondent no.
3 has not remained present either in person or through an
advocate. 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. C.M. Shah has taken this Court
through the entire evidence of the prosecution on record of
the case and submitted that the complainant has fully
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1053/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/08/2025
undefined
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. Ruturaj Nanavati for the
respondent nos. 1 and 2 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
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
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1053/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/08/2025
undefined
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 - Amrabhai Meghabai
Singal examined at Exh. 12 is the complainant who has
narrated the facts as stated in the complaint which is
produced at Exh. 14. The complainant has also produced
his caste certificate at Exh. 13. During the cross
examination by the learned advocate for the accused the
witness has admitted that at the time of the incident there
was no crop growing in the field and the gutter was made in
his field and the water from the gutter flows outside
through the drain. The complainant has also admitted that
the field adjoining to him does not belong to the accused
no. 1. The field at the southern side belongs to
Mansukhbhai Hamirbhai and there is a road on the eastern
and western side. He and his son had gone to the hospital
at around 10.00 am and he had told the doctor that he had
an altercation but did not tell the doctor any other details.
At the time of the incident, there were about 20 people in
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1053/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/08/2025
undefined
the field and he had signed the complaint which is
produced at Exh. 14 at the field at around 06.00 pm. The
complainant has immediately thereafter, stated that he had
signed the complaint which is produced at Exh. 14 at the
hospital.
7.1 PW2 - Rasilaben Amrabhai Singal examined at Exh.
16 is the wife of the complainant and has supported the
case of the prosecution. During the cross examination she
has admitted that she had gone to the field one week prior
to the incident and the edge was made of mud and if there
were heavy rains, the edges would be washed away. The
witness has admitted that the adjoining field does not
belong to the accused no. 1 and they did not have any
discussion with the accused no. 1. That immediately after
the incident, they went home and she did not go with her
husband to the bus stand.
7.2 PW3 - Rajeshbhai Amrabhai Singal examined at Exh.
17 is the son of the complainant who has stated that the
field of the accused is on the eastern side and when they
went to the field on the date of the incident, both the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1053/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/08/2025
undefined
accused were present and they were digging the edges and
had destroyed about five feet of the edge. If there were heavy
rains in the monsoon season, water would come into their
field and hence, his father had gone to the place where they
were digging and they had an altercation. The witness has
stated that earlier they had a similar kind of altercation and
at the time of the incident, there were a number of people in
the adjoining fields. During the cross examination by the
learned advocate for the accused the witness has stated that
five to six days prior to the incident he had gone to the field
alone and he did not go to the bus stand on the date of the
incident. He and his father had gone straight to the hospital
and he does not know what conversation had taken place
between the doctor and his father. During the cross
examination the witness has admitted that the edges were
broken about one month prior to the incident and
thereafter, the edges were not made by the accused.
7.3 PW4 - Ravjibhai Haribhai Rathod examined at Exh. 18
is the ASI who has recorded the complaint of the
complainant.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1053/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/08/2025
undefined
7.4 PW5 - Nathubhai Deshabhai Makwana examined at
Exh. 20 is the PSO who has registered the complaint and
has given the yadi for the Medical Officer which is produced
at Exh. 21, the FIR at Exh. 23 and the extract of the station
diary at Exh. 24.
7.5 PW6 - Anilbhai Hirabhai Barwadiya examined at Exh.
25 and PW7 - Jentibhai Juthabhai Dudhatra examined at
Exh. 27 are the panch witnesses of the panchnama of the
place of offence which is produced at Exh. 26. Both the
witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution
and have been declared hostile and cross examined at
length by the learned APP.
7.6 PW8 - Bachubhai Jivajibhai Ninama examined at Exh.
30 is the Investigating Officer who has narrated in detail the
procedure undertaken by him during investigation. During
the cross examination by the learned advocate for the
accused the witness has stated that the complainant did not
submit any documents regarding his ownership of the land
and at the time of the incident it was rainy season and no
cultivation was done in the field. The complainant is
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1053/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/08/2025
undefined
working in the S.T Corporation and he did not produce any
document to show whether he was on leave or on duty on
the date of the incident. During investigation it was also
found that there was a dispute between the parties
regarding the edge between the fields and PW2 - Rasilaben -
the wife of the complainant has not stated that the accused
had used any caste slurs against her husband.
7.7 PW9 - Dr. Manishbhai Mahidasbhai Chavda examined
at Exh. 32 is the Medical Officer who was on duty at the
Community Health Centre, Vanthli on 25.06.2010. The
witness has stated that at around 10.15 am, Amrabhai
Meghabhai was brought for treatment and in the history he
has stated that he was injured by fists on the abdomen and
back. On examination, he had complained of abdominal
pain but no external injury were seen on the body. The
witness has produced the medical certificate at Exh. 33.
During the cross examination the witness has stated that he
could not state whether the complaint of pain made by the
complainant was true or not and no history was given by
the patient.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1053/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/08/2025
undefined
8. On minute appreciation of the entire evidence of the
prosecution, in the complaint produced at Exh. 13, the
complainant has not stated any specific words that were
used as caste slurs by the accused and if the deposition of
the complainant and the complaint are perused, there is an
exaggeration in the version of the complainant before the
learned Trial Court. As per the case of the prosecution PW2
- Rasilaben Amrabhai Singal and PW3 - Rajeshbhai
Amrabhai Singal are the wife and son of the complainant
and they both are eyewitnesses and in the entire evidence it
has emerged that there were a number of people working in
the field but there are no independent witnesses examined
before the learned Trial Court. There is no iota of evidence
that the incident has ever occurred and the medical
evidence does not support the say of the complainant.
Moreover, during the entire evidence, the role of PW2 -
Rasilaben Amrabhai and PW3 - Rajeshbhai Amrabhai has
not come on record when the accused was assaulting the
complainant with fists. There are major contradictions in
the deposition of the complainant, his wife and son and
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1053/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/08/2025
undefined
even the place where the complainant has signed the
complaint, is in dispute. On the one hand the complainant
says that he had signed the complaint at the field but
immediately thereafter, he has stated that he had signed
the complaint in the hospital. There is contradictory
evidence about the presence of the accused at the spot and
it has also emerged on record that the edge between the two
fields were broken one month prior to the incident and the
dispute was going on and the accused had not made up the
edge. There is no iota of evidence that the field of the
complainant and the field of the accused were adjoining
each other and the panchnama of the place of offence is
also not proved as the Investigating Officer has not narrated
any contentions of the panchnama. Moreover, the caste
certificate of the complainant which is produced at Exh. 13
has not been proved by the prosecution and there is no
evidence to show that the Investigating Officer had
investigated about the caste certificate of the complainant.
9. In view of the settled position of law, the learned Trial
Court has appreciated the entire evidence in proper
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1053/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/08/2025
undefined
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.
10. The impugned judgement and order of acquittal
passed by the learned Special Judge and 7 th Additional
Sessions Judge, Junagadh in Atrocity Sessions Case No.
28/2010 on 05.04.2012, is hereby confirmed.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1053/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/08/2025
undefined
11. Bail bond stands cancelled. Record and proceedings
be sent back to the concerned Trial Court forthwith.
Sd/-
(S. V. PINTO,J)
VASIM S. SAIYED
