Gujarat High Court
State Of Guajrat vs Abadkhan Jalamkhan Ghori on 5 August, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1698/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/08/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1698 of 2012
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE S.V. PINTO Sd/-
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
No
==========================================================
STATE OF GUAJRAT
Versus
ABADKHAN JALAMKHAN GHORI & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS. CHETNA SHAH, APP for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR ANKIT Y BACHANI for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3,4
MR.MRUDUL M BAROT for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 5
RULE SERVED for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 2,3,4
==========================================================
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 4th Additional & Sessions Judge & Special
Judge, Banaskantha (hereinafter referred to as "the learned Trial Court")
in Special (Atrocity) Case No. 42 of 2011 on 25.07.2012, whereby, the
learned Trial Court has acquitted the respondents for the offence
punishable under Sections 323, 504, 506(2) and 114 of Indian Penal
Code, 1860 (hereafter referred to as "IPC" for short) and Sections 3(1)
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1698/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/08/2025
undefined
(10) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as "Atrocities Act").
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 4-6-2010 at around 12.00 hours, the accused hurled caste-slurs
against the complainant Jethabai Gokadbhai Parmar, while he was
coming towards his house and met the accused near the Panchayat
platform, the accused assaulted the complainant with fists and threatened
to kill him and the complainant filed the complaint at the Palanpur Taluka
Police Station under Section 323, 504, 506 (2) and 114 of the Indian
Penal Code, 1860 and Section 3 (1)(10) of the Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter
referred to as the Atrocity Act), which came to be registered as Palanpur
Taluka Police Station at II-C.R. No 54 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 Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Palanpur and as the said offence against the accused
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1698/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/08/2025
undefined
was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the case was committed
to the Sessions Court, Palanpur as per the provisions of Section 209 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure and case was registered Special
(Atrocities) Case No. 42 of 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. 5 was framed
against the accused and the statements of the accused were recorded at
Exhs.6 to 9, 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 seven oral evidences and eight
documentary evidences to bring home the charge against the accused and
after the learned Additional Public Prosecutor filed the closing pursis at
Exh. 34, 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 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 all the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1698/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/08/2025
undefined
accused from all the charges leveled against them.
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.
4. Heard learned APP Mr. Pranav Dhagat for the appellant - State,
learned advocate Mr. Mrudul Barot for the respondent No.5 - original
complainant and learned advocate Mr. Ankit Y. Bachani for the
respondent - original accused Nos. 1 to 4 and . Perused the impugned
judgement and order of acquittal and have re-appreciated the entire
evidence of the prosecution on record of the case.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1698/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/08/2025
undefined
5. Learned APP Mr. Pranav Dhagat and learned advocate Mr. Mrudul
Barot 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. That 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.
6. Learned advocate Mr. Ankit Bachani for the respondent Nos. 1 to 4
submits that the judgments and order has been passed after appreciation
of all the evidence and the learned 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)
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1698/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/08/2025
undefined
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;
(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
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1698/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/08/2025
undefined
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
evidence of the prosecution on record, to bring home the charge against
the accused, Prosecution Witness No.1 Jethabai Gokadbhai Parmar
examined at Exhibit 13 is the complainant, who has narrated the facts as
stated in the complaint produced at Exhibit 14. The complainant has
stated that after he was assaulted, he called the D.S.P. control point No.
52600 from his mobile No. number 99049-86397 and told the DSP about
the incident but he was not helped and he went to the bus stand and sat at
the shop of Sadiqbhai Indubhai Luhar. Once again the accused No. 4
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1698/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/08/2025
undefined
came and abused him and hurled caste-slurs and assaulted him and the
other three accused also came and caught him and beat him with fists and
threatened to kill him. He went to the Palanpur Taluka Police Station and
filed the complaint, which is produced at Exhibit 14. The complainant has
also produced his caste certificate at Exhibit 15.
During the cross examination by the learned advocate for the
accused, the witness has stated that he is a social-worker and was also a
Deputy Sarpanch of the village before 5 years. At the place of incident
near the Chabutara, there are residences of Patel's and persons from the
Muslim community and it is the public road to go towards Vadgam. The
road towards the bus stand is also from this place and is always crowded
with people. There are a number of shops and about 2 months after the
incident, he had filed an application against the accused No. 1 before the
Collector. The witness has admitted that in the history before the Medical
Officer, he has not named the accused.
9.1 Prosecution Witness No. 2 - Javanji Madarji Rana examined
at Exhibit 18 is an eyewitness to the incident as per the case of the
prosecution and the witness has supported the case of the prosecution.
During the cross examination by the learned advocate for the
accused, the witness has stated that Shiv Shakti shop is on the eastern
side and the bus-stand area is a congested area. There are a number of
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1698/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/08/2025
undefined
jeeps to go outside of the village and 10 to 15 persons were present at the
time of the incident and the accused were going to their field and the
complainant had abused them.
9.2 Prosecution Witness No. 3 - Sajidbhai Indubhai Luhar
examined at Exhibit : 20 is also an eyewitness to the second incident. The
witness has stated that he was at his cabin and the complainant came and
sat and started reading the paper and at that time, the accused came and
hurled caste-slurs and assaulted the complainant. Jawanji of Asmapura
village came and intervened and thereafter, the complainant went to
Palanpur and filed the complaint.
During the cross examination by the learned advocate for the
accused, the witness has stated that the cabin belongs to the complainant
and he had taken the cabin on rent from the complainant for the past 8
years but he was not paying the rent. The cabin was just opposite the bus
stand and there are a number of cabins at this place. The area is the bus
stand area and congested and when the complainant came, he was alone.
The accused No. 1 was a Deputy Sarpanch of Ghoda village 5 years prior
to the incident and he does not know whether a notice was given to
remove the cabin by the accused No. 1.
9.3 Prosecution Witness No. 4 - Ratanben Jethabhai examined at
Exhibit 21 is the wife of the complainant but she has admitted that she is
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1698/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/08/2025
undefined
not an eyewitness to the incident and has not witnessed any incident.
9.4 Prosecution Witness No. 5 - Dr. Yogeshkumar Hemraj-
bhai Desai examined at Exhibit 22 is the Medical Officer who was on
duty on 4-6-2010 at the Civil Hospital Palanpur at around 3.30 pm when
the complainant Jethabhai Gopalbhai Parmar came for treatment with a
Yadi from the Palanpur Taluka Police Station. In the history, the patient
had given history of an assault with injury by fists at around 12 noon at
Ghoda village on 4-6-2010. On examination, there was tenderness over
left side forehead, 2 cm x 1 cm and the patient had complained of back
pain on the right side. The x-ray of LS spine AP and x-ray of dorsal spine
AP and lateral was taken but no abnormality was detected. The injury
could occur with a hard and blunt object and the injury was simple and
would take 7 to 10 days to heal, if no complications occur. The patient
was admitted on 04-06-2010 and was discharged on 08-06-2010 at 11 am.
During the cross examination by the learned advocate for the
accused, the witness has stated that in the certificate produced at Exhibit
24, he has not mentioned the age of the injury and if a person has a fall,
he could sustain such injuries. The patient did not name the person, who
has assaulted him and the injuries were simple. The panchnama of the
place of offence is produced at Exhibit 25 and the arrest panchnama is
produced at Exhibit 26.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1698/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/08/2025
undefined
9.5 Prosecution Witness No. 6 - Sendhaji Sadaji examined at
Exhibit 29 is the P.S.O. who has registered the complaint.
9.6 Prosecution Witness No. 7 - Jhalabai Manjibai Barsat
examined at Exhibit 33 is the Investigating Officer, who has narrated the
procedure undertaken by him during investigation. In the cross
examination, he has admitted that he was not specially appointed as
officer for the atrocity cases and he has not recorded the statements of the
Sarpanch and the Talati during investigation.
10. On appreciation of the entire evidence of the cross examination, it
has come on record that the first incident had occurred on the public road
and the second incident has occurred at the cabin of Prosecution Witness
No.3 - Sajidbhai Indubhai Luhar but there are no independent witnesses
to the first incident. Prosecution Witness No.2 Jawanji Madarji Rana and
Prosecution Witness No.3, Sajidbhai Indubhai Luhar are the friends and
known to the complainant and Prosecution Witness No.4 - Ratanben
Jethabai is the wife of the complainant, who is not an eyewitness to the
incident. Prosecution Witness No.2 - Jawanji Madarji Rana and
Prosecution Witness No.3 - Sajidbhai Indubhai Luhar have up to a certain
extent supported the case of the prosecution, but their evidence is not
trustworthy and reliable as there are major contradictions in their
evidence. As per the say of the complainant, he had gone for treatment to
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1698/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/08/2025
undefined
the Medical Officer, Civil Hospital Palanpur but he has not named the
accused as the persons, who had assaulted him. Moreover, the Medical
Officer has also found that the injuries sustained by the complainant
could be sustained by a person in a fall and it has also emerged on record
that there was a dispute with the accused No. 2 who was a Deputy
Sarpanch and the accused No. 2 had given a notice to remove the cabin of
the complainantas it was an encroachment on the public road.
Admittedly, the incident has occurred at the public road near the bus
stand and there were a number of persons as it was a congested area, but
no independent witnesses have been examined by the prosecution.
11. 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
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1698/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/08/2025
undefined
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.
12. The impugned judgement and order of acquittal passed by learned
4th Additional & Sessions Judge & Special Judge, Banaskantha in Special
(Atrocity) Case No. 42 of 2011 on 25.07.2012, is hereby confirmed.
13. Bail bond stands canceled. Record and proceedings be sent back to
the concerned Trial Court forthwith.
Sd/-
(S. V. PINTO,J)
VVM
