Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Baloch Allarankhan Karimkhan on 5 August, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/75/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/08/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 75 of 2013
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE S.V. PINTO
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting No
==========================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
BALOCH ALLARANKHAN KARIMKHAN & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS. C.M. SHAH, APP for the Appellant(s) No. 1
APURVA K JANI(7057) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 4
MR MA PAREKH(1088) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE S.V. PINTO
Date : 05/08/2025
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, Patan (hereinafter referred to as "the learned
Trial Court") in Special Atrocity Case No. 51/2011 on
18.10.2012, whereby, the learned Trial Court has acquitted
the respondent for the offence punishable under Sections
323, 504 and 506(2) read with Section 114 of the Indian
Penal Code, 1860 and Section 3(1)(10) of Schedule Caste
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/75/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/08/2025
undefined
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 17.07.2011 at around 09.30 am, the complainant
and witness - Gobarbhai Sawabhai Solanki were standing at
the edge of their field and at that time the accused came
armed with weapons and got angry and the accused no. 1
caught hold of the complainant and as he had a sword with
him and tried to assault the complainant with the sword.
The complainant bent down and he was not injured and the
accused no. 1 slapped the complainant. The accused no. 2
had a stick and the accused no. 3 had a scythe and the
accused hurled caste slurs and threatened the complainant
that if he would step his foot in the field they would kill him.
The complainant filed the complaint at the Shankeshwar
Police Station under Section 323, 504, 506(2) and 114 of the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/75/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/08/2025
undefined
Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 3(1)(10) of the Atrocity
Act which came to be registered at Shankeshwar Police
Station II - C.R. No. 53 of 2011.
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, Sami and as the said offences
against the accused were exclusively triable by the Court of
Sessions, the case was committed to the Sessions Court,
Patan as per the provisions of Section 209 of Code of
Criminal Procedure and the case was registered as Special
Atrocity Case No. 51/2011.
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. 9 was framed against the
accused and the statement of the accused was recorded at
Exh. 10, 11 and 12, wherein, the accused denied the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/75/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/08/2025
undefined
contents of the charge and the entire evidence of the
prosecution was taken on record.
2.4 The prosecution examined 7 witnesses and produced 8
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/75/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/08/2025
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. Sunil Dave for learned advocate
Mr. M.A. Parekh for the respondent nos. 1 to 3 and learned
advocate Mr. Apurv Jani for the respondent no. 4. 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/75/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/08/2025
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. Sunil Dave for learned advocate
Mr. M.A. Parekh for the respondent nos. 1 to 3 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
reappreciate the evidence by the Appellate Court but if after
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/75/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/08/2025
undefined
reappreciation, 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 - Vankar Nanjibhai
Ghemarbhai at Exh. 14 is the complainant who has
narrated the facts as stated in the complaint. The witness
has produced the copy of the complaint at Exh. 15. During
the cross examination by the learned advocate for the
accused, the complainant has admitted that there is a
dispute with the accused about Survey No. 8 paiki 47
which is admeasuring 12 acres of land with the accused.
The land is in the name of the accused in the revenue
record and after filing of the complaint on 08.10.2011, his
wife Amarben has filed a complaint under Sections 354 and
395 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and the Atrocity Act
against the accused. The complainant has admitted that he
is residing peacefully in the village and the incident has
occurred at the field which is in the name of the accused.
That at the time of the incident only he and Gobarbhai were
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/75/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/08/2025
undefined
present and after they went to the field the accused had
come and he had seen the accused at a distance of one field
away but he did not try to move away from there.
7.1 PW2 - Gobarbhai Savabhai Solanki examined at Exh.
16 is the witness who was with the complainant on the date
of the incident. The witness has stated that the accused
came and started abusing the complainant and the accused
no. 1 tried to hit the complainant with his sword but the
complainant bent and was not injured. He intervened and
the accused went away and hurled caste slurs against the
complainant. During the cross-examination the witness has
admitted that the dispute had occurred because of the field
which was in the name of the accused.
7.2 PW3 - Rameshbhai Velabhai examined at Exh. 18 and
PW4 - Dadubhai Chelabhai examined at Exh. 19 are the
panch witnesses of the arrest panchnama which is
produced at Exh. 19. Both the witnesses have not
supported the case of the prosecution and have been
declared hostile.
7.3 PW5 - Bhagwanbhai Narsinhbhai examined at Exh. 21
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/75/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/08/2025
undefined
is the PSO who has recorded the complaint of the
complainant which is produced at Exh. 15.
7.4 PW6 - Tejabhai Punjabhai examined at Exh. 24 is the
panch witness of the panchnama of the place of offence
which is produced at Exh. 25. The witness has supported
the case of the prosecution.
7.5 PW7 - Nanjibhai Savjibhai Ninama examined at Exh.
26 is the Investigating Officer who has narrated the
procedure undertaken by him during investigation. The
witness has produced the caste certificate of the
complainant at Exh. 27. During the cross examination by
the learned advocate for the accused the witness has stated
that during investigation it was found that there was a
dispute regarding the land between the parties and when he
went to the place of incident, he did not inquire about the
ownership of the field. During cross examination, the copy
of the village form no. 8A of the land is produced at Exh. 29
and the copy of the village form no. 7/12 is produced at
Exh. 30 and the witness has admitted that in both these
documents the name of the accused no. 1 is shown as the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/75/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/08/2025
undefined
owner of the property.
8. On minute appreciation of the entire evidence of the
prosecution, it is on record that there is a dispute between
the parties regarding land bearing Survey No. 8 paiki 47
situated in village Tuwad of Sami Taluka, District Patan
and the land is in the ownership of the accused. It is the
say of the complainant that the land was in his possession
but there is no iota of evidence regarding the same and the
incident has occurred in the field but there are no
witnesses to the incident. As per the case of the
complainant, the accused no. 1 had a sword, the accused
no. 2 had a stick and the accused no. 3 had a scythe but
no weapons have been used by the accused at the time of
the offence. It has also emerged on record that the dispute
of the land is between the parties and the wife of the
complainant - Amarben has also filed a case under Sections
354 and 395 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and the
Atrocity Act against the accused.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/75/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/08/2025
undefined
9. In view of the settled position of law, 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.
10. The impugned judgement and order of acquittal
passed by the learned Special Judge, Patan in Special
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/75/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/08/2025
undefined
Atrocity Case No. 51/2011 on 18.10.2012, is hereby
confirmed.
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
