Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Manubhai Panchanbhai Makwana on 5 August, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1841/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/08/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1841 of 2012
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE S.V. PINTO Sd/-
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
No
==========================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
MANUBHAI PANCHANBHAI MAKWANA & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR. PRANAV DHAGAT, APP for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR VL THAKKAR(2735) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1
MR. HARDIK C THAKKAR(7133) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 2
MR. NIRAV V THAKKAR(9766) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE S.V. PINTO
Date : 05/08/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant State under Section 378
of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the judgement and order
of acquittal passed by learned Special Judge, Limbdi (hereinafter referred
to as "the learned Trial Court") in Special (Atrocity) Case No. 07 of 2012
(Old Case No. 40 of 2009) on 30.08.2012, whereby, the learned Trial
Court has acquitted the respondent for the offence punishable under
Sections 323, 504, 506(2) and 114 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereafter
referred to as "IPC" for short), Sections 3(1)(10) of the Scheduled Caste
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1841/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/08/2025
undefined
and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter
referred to as "Atrocities Act") and Section 135 of the Bombay Police
Act.
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 On 31-12-2008, Mahesh the son of the complainant Jagdishbhai
Bachubhai Chauhan was in the school and the other son Vipul came and
told the complainant that two boys were quarreling with Mahesh. The
complainant immediately went to school and found that the accused and
his two sons Bhimo and Kirti were quarreling with his son Mahesh. The
accused took a stick and hit one blow on the right hand and one blow on
the back of Mahesh. At that time, the complainant Jagdish Bachubhai
Chauhan asked the accused why was he interfering when the children
were quarreling and the accused hurled caste-slurs against him. The
complainant took his son to the Government Jospital at Sayla and
thereafter to the Mahatma Gandhi Hospital and filed the complaint at the
Panshina Police Station under Sections 323, 504 and 506(2) of the Indian
Penal Code, Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act, and Section 3 (1)
(10) Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities)
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1841/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/08/2025
undefined
Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as "the Atrocity Act"), which came tobe
registered as Panshina Police Station II-C.R.No. 3001 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 Chief
Judicial Magistrate First Class, Limbdi and as the said offence against the
accused was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the case was
committed to the Additional Sessions Court, Limbdi as per the provisions
of Section 209 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and case was registered
Special (Atrocity) Case No. 07 of 2012 (Old Case No. 40 of 2009).
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. 7 was framed
against the accused and the statements of the accused was recorded at
Exh.8, wherein, the accused denied all the contents of the charge and the
entire evidence of the prosecution was taken on record.
2.4 The prosecution produced ten oral evidences and five documentary
evidences to bring home charge against the accused and after the learned
Additional Public Prosecutor filed the closing pursis at Exh. 36, the
further statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1841/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/08/2025
undefined
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 but stated that he wanted to examine defense
witness. 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 judgment and order was pleased to acquit the
accused from all the charges leveled against him.
3. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said judgement and order
of acquittal, the appellant - State has filed the present appeal mainly
stating that the impugned judgement 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 cross-examination,
nothing adverse has been elicited in favour of the respondents. The case
has been proved beyond reasonable doubts and the prosecution has
successfully established the case against the respondents and the
judgement and order of acquittal is unwarranted, illegal and without any
basis in the eyes of 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.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1841/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/08/2025
undefined
4. Heard learned APP Mr. Pranav Dhagat for the appellant - State,
learned advocate Mr. Hardik C Brahmbhatt for the respondent No.2 -
original complainant and learned advocate Mr. Nirav V. Thakkar for the
respondent - original accused No.1. Perused the impugned judgement
and order of acquittal and have re-appreciated the entire evidence of the
prosecution on record of the case.
5. Learned APP Mr. Pranav Dhagat and learned advocate Mr. Hardik
C Brahmbhatt have jointly taken this Court through the entire evidence of
the prosecution on record of the case and submitted that the judgment and
order of acquittal is contrary to law and evidence on record and the
learned trial Court has not appreciated the direct and indirect evidence in
the case. The complainant has supported the case of the prosecution and
the witnesses have identified the accused before the learned trial Court.
The prosecution has fully proved the case beyond reasonable doubts but
the learned trial Court has relied on minor contradictions and has given
undue weightage with regard to the place of incident. That the order
passed by the learned trial Court is illegal, improper and perverse and is
required to be quashed and set aside and the appeal of the appellant must
be allowed.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1841/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/08/2025
undefined
6. Learned advocate Mr. Nirav V Thakkar for the respondent No. 1
has submitted that the judgments and order has been passed after
appreciation of all the evidence and the learned trial Court has
appreciated the evidence in proper perspective and hence, the appeal of
the appellant-State must be rejected.
7. At the outset, before discussing the facts of the present case, it
would be appropriate to refer to the observations of the Apex Court 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 v. State of M.P., (2006) 10 SCC 313 : AIR 2006
SC 831, 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". (emphasis supplied)
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;
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1841/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/08/2025
undefined
(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.
8. The law with regard to acquittal appeals is well crystallized and in
acquittal appeals, there is a 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.
9. In light on the above settled principles of law and considering the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1841/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/08/2025
undefined
evidence of the prosecution on record, Prosecution Witness No.1 -
Jagdishbhai Bachubhai Chauhan examined at Exh. 11 is the complainant,
who has narrated the facts as produced in the FIR, which is produced at
Exhibit 12 and the witness has produced his caste certificate at Exhibit
During the cross examination by the learned advocate for the
accused, the witness has stated that when the incident had occurred in the
school, he was at home and the cause of the incident was the children,
who were swinging on the swing. The witness has admitted that he has
not mentioned the exact place, where the accused met him, and after
filing of the complaint, he had received an amount of Rs.2700/- from the
government.
9.1 Prosecution Witness No. 2 - Maheshbhai Jagdishbhai
Chauhan examined at Exh. 15 is the son of the complainant and he has
stated that on the date of the incident, he was in school and was on the
swing in the recess time. At that time, Kuldeep - the son of the accused
came and pushed him and told him to get down from the swing as he
wanted to swing. Both of them had a quarrel and the accused was called
and he took a stick and gave him one blow on his right hand and two
blows on his back and threatened to break him, if he had took his son's
name. The teacher Ilaben intervened and told him to immediately go
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1841/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/08/2025
undefined
away and at that time, his brother called his father and his father scolded
the accused. He was taken to the Sayla hospital and thereafter to Gandhi
Hospital at Surendranagar.
During the cross examination by the learned advocate for the
accused, the witness has stated that they are known to the accused for
many years and his father was with him when he had gone to the hospital
at Sayla and Surendranagar. His father had spoken to the doctor and at the
time of the incident, his father, the accused, his brother and teacher Ilaben
were not together at the same time. The witness has submitted that the
accused has filed a case on his father also.
9.2 Prosecution Witness No. 3 - Kamleshbhai Jagdishbhai
Chauhan is the son of the complainant and he has supported the case of
the prosecution.
During the cross examination by the learned advocate for the
accused, he has admitted that it was recess time and he and his brother
Vipul had come home for lunch and while his brother Mahesh was
swinging, there were 20 to 25 students around. His brother had fallen
down and was injured and he had informed his father and mother about
the same but he did not inform the teachers and students about the same.
The witness has admitted that if a case under the Atrocity Act is filed,
they would get a compensation and his father had received a
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1841/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/08/2025
undefined
compensation of Rs.2700.
9.3 Prosecution Witness No. 4 - Vipulbhai Jagdishbhai
examined at Exhibit 21 is the son of the complainant and has supported
the case of the prosecution.
During the cross examination by the learned advocate for the
accused, the witness has admitted that, at the time of the recess,
immediately the bell rang and he went home with his brother Kamlesh
and after recess, they did not go back to the school. His brother Mahesh
had come home and told him that he and Kuldeep had a fight and
thereafter his father had gone and filed the complaint. The witness has
admitted that the swing was an iron swing and his brother Mahesh had
told him that he and Kuldeep had a fight about the swing and he was
injured with the swing.
9.4 Prosecution Witness No. 5 - Dr. Ramniklal Gordhanbhai
Thanki examined at Exhibit 22 is the Medical Officer, who was on duty
at General Hospital, Surendranagar and he has stated that on 31-12-2008,
Maheshbhai Jagdishbhai was brought with a transfer chit and in the
history, he has stated that he was assaulted with a lathi by Manubhai and
had taken primary treatment at Community Health Center, Sayla . On
examination, a red bruise was found over the right upper arm about 6 cm
x 1.5 cm in size and there was tenderness and swelling, a red bruise over
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1841/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/08/2025
undefined
the left scapular region about 3 cm x 1.5 cm in size, a red bruise over
right scapula about 3 cm x 1.5 cm in size and a red bruise over inter
scapular region of back about 3 cm x 1.5 cm in size. The patient was
admitted on 31-12-2008 at 8.30 pm and was discharged on 3-01-2009.
The injuries were simple in nature and were caused with a hard and blunt
object and would recover within 10 days, if no complications arise. The
witness has produced the Medical Certificate at Exhibit 23 and the
transfer chit at Exhibit 24.
During the cross examination by the learned advocate for the
accused, the witness has stated that if a person falls down from an iron
swing and was injured with the swing, the injuries sustained by the
patient could occur. In the medical certificate produced at Exhibit 23, he
has not stated that the history was given by the patient himself.
9.5 Prosecution Witness No. 6 - Pratapsang Roopsang
Chauhan examined at Exhibit 26 and Prosecution Witness No. 8
Mansukhbhai Laghubhai Fichadiya at Exhibit 31 are the panch-witnesses
of the place of offence, which is produced at Exhibit 27. The witnesses
have not supported the case of the prosecution and have been declared
hostile
9.6 Prosecution Witness No. 7 - Bharatbhai Shivubhai Parmar is
the panchwitness of the arrest panchnama, which is produced at Exhibit
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1841/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/08/2025
undefined
29. The witness has not supported the case of the prosecution and has
been declared hostile.
9.7 Prosecution Witness No. 9 - Nasruddinkhan Kamumiya
Malik examined at Exhibit 32 is the PSO who has registered the
complaint at Sayla Police Station and has produced the extract of the
station diary at Exhibit 33. On perusal of the document produced at
Exhibit 33, the offence has occurred on 31.12.2008 at 16:00 hours and the
complaint was filed 01.01.2009 at 15:45 hours at the Sayla Police Station.
9.8 Prosecution Witness No. 10 Ramjibhai Jagjivanbhai Pargi
examined at Exhibit 34 is the Investigating Officer, who has narrated the
procedure undertaken by him during investigation.
In the cross examination, the witness has admitted that the
complainant did not mention the exact place where the incident has
occurred and in the complaint, he has not stated that his son was hit with
a stick. None of the witnesses have stated in their statement that the
accused had used any caste-slurs against the complainant and he has not
recorded the statement of teacher Ilaben. Teacher Ilaben was not an
eyewitness to the incident and he has not recorded the statement of the
Principal of the school to find out the recess time during of the school.
Moreover, during investigation, he did not take any documentary
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1841/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/08/2025
undefined
evidence to show that witness Vipul and Kamlesh were present in the
school and he has not recorded the statements of any students during
investigation. Witness Mahesh did not say that the teacher Ilaben or
Principal are eyewitnesses to the incident and besides the place of school,
no panchnama of any place of offense was drawn. During investigation,
no evidence of any eyewitness was found.
10. On appreciation of the entire evidence of the prosecution, the exact
place of incident where the incident has occurred is not definite and the
complainant states that the accused had met him on the road, but has not
mentioned the exact place, where he met the accused. Moreover, the
injured witness Mahesh has stated that teacher Ilaben was an eyewitness
to the incident and it has also emerged on record that there were about 20
to 25 students near the swing at the time of the incident as it was recess
time but there is no evidence of any independent witness on record. The
Investigating Officer has admitted that he has not recorded the statement
of teacher Ilaben as it did not emerge during investigation that she was an
eyewitness to the incident and he has not recorded the statement of the
Principal who could have thrown some light whether the incident has
occurred in the school or not. It has also emerged on record that the
eyewitness Mahesh had a quarrel with Kuldeep - the son of the accused
regarding sitting on the swing and Mahesh was injured with the swing.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1841/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/08/2025
undefined
There are major contradictions in the deposition of Prosecution Witness
No. 3 - Kamleshbhai Jagdishbhai Chauhan and Prosecution Witness No.
4 - Vipul Jagdishbhai Chauhan and besides the complainant and his sons,
no independent witnesses have been examined on record. Moreover, none
of the witnesses have stated that any caste-slurs were used by the accused
at the time of the incident and the entire evidence has been appreciated by
the learned trial Court.
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 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.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1841/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/08/2025
undefined
11. The impugned judgement and order of acquittal passed by learned
Special (Atrocity) Case No. 07 of 2012 (Old Case No. 40 of 2009) on
30.08.2012, , is hereby confirmed.
12. Bail bond stands canceled. Record and proceedings be sent back to
the concerned Trial Court forthwith.
Sd/-
(S. V. PINTO,J)
VVM
