Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Vijay @ Dipu Savaisinh Chauhan on 5 August, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1160/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/08/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL (AGAINST ACQUITTAL) NO. 1160 of 2017
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE S.V. PINTO
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting No
==========================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
VIJAY @ DIPU SAVAISINH CHAUHAN & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS. C.M. SHAH, APP for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR J G PANCHAL(2672) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1
MR P J YAGNIK(1004) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1
NOTICE SERVED for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 2
==========================================================
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 (Atrocity) Judge, and 4th Additional Sessions Judge,
Gandhinagar (hereinafter referred to as "the learned Trial
Court") in Special (Atrocity) Case No. 33/2014 on
29.06.2017, whereby, the learned Trial Court has acquitted
the respondent for the offence punishable under Sections
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1160/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/08/2025
undefined
323, 325, 337 and 506(2) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860
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 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 07.09.2014, at around 20.00 hours, the
complainant - Manishkumar Kanhaiyalal Kapadia and his
friend Shishir Kantilal Vaghela were going towards
Chandkeda - Motera village to get a xerox copy of a
document when the accused and Jameel Rathod met them.
The complainant greeted Jameel Rathod and the accused
got angry and abused and hurled caste slurs against the
complainant. The complainant and Shishir started walking
towards their house when suddenly the accused came from
behind and while they were on the road in front of Urja
Complex, the accused caught hold of the shirt of the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1160/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/08/2025
undefined
complainant, threw him on the ground and started
assaulting him. Shishir Kantilal Vaghela intervened and
while the complainant was trying to run away, the accused
threw a stone on the back of the complainant and injured
him on his back and he sustained a fracture on his right
knee. The complainant filed the complaint at Chandkeda
Police Station under Sections 323, 506(2) and 337 of the
Indian Penal Code and Section 3(1)(10) of the Atrocity Act
which came to be registered at Chandkeda Police Station I -
C.R. No.170 of 2014.
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 Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Gandhinagar and as the said offences against
the accused were exclusively triable by the Court of
Sessions, the case was committed to the Sessions Court,
Gandhinagar as per the provisions of Section 209 of Code of
Criminal Procedure and the case was registered as Special
(Atrocity) Case No. 33/2014.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1160/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/08/2025
undefined
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. 5 was framed against the
accused and the statement of the accused was recorded at
Exh. 6, 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 10 witnesses and produced
11 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 the
accused from the charges levelled against him.
3. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1160/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/08/2025
undefined
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
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 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. P.J. Yagnik with learned
advocate Mr. J.G. Panchal for the respondent no. 1. Though
served, the respondent no. 2 has not remained present
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1160/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/08/2025
undefined
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
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. P.J. Yagnik with learned
advocate Mr. J.G. Panchal 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
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1160/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/08/2025
undefined
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.
7. To bring home the charge against the accused, the
prosecution has examined PW1 - Manishkumar Kanaiyalal
Kapadiya at Exh. 26 and the witness is the complainant
who has narrated the facts of the complaint which is
produced at Exh. 27. During the cross-examination by the
learned advocate for the accused, the witness has stated
that he is a graduate in BA and the incident had occurred
near a complex where there are many shops. A number of
persons were on the road and at the time of the incident, it
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1160/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/08/2025
undefined
was dark. The 108 ambulance was called and he was taken
to the hospital and at the place of incident, there are
private hospitals also. The complainant has stated that he
went home and thereafter called 108 Ambulance and went
to the hospital. Thereafter, he had gone home and was
resting for three months and as his surname is Kapadia,
one cannot know his caste. He did not give the police his
caste certificate when he had filed the complaint and he
and the accused are residing in the same society.
7.1 PW2 - Gaurav Bipinbhai Maheria examined at Exh. 30
is the panch witness of the panchnama of the place of
offence which is produced at Exh. 31. The witness has
supported the case of the prosecution and during the cross-
examination, he has admitted that near the place of
incident, there is a ditch and the complainant was present
with him in the court.
7.2 PW3 - Jameelkumar Kamleshkumar Rathod examined
at Exh. 34 is an eyewitness who was with the accused on
the date of the incident. The witness has stated that he is
known to the complainant and he and and the accused had
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1160/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/08/2025
undefined
gone to Motera to buy slippers and were going home on the
bike. The complainant and one of his friend were walking
towards home and he greeted the complainant. The
complainant and the accused did not get along and hence,
the complainant ignored the accused and they both had a
verbal altercation and started pushing each other. The
complainant thereafter, threatened the accused that he
would go to his house and tell all his secrets and was
quickly walking towards his house. The witness got down
from the bike and the accused followed the complainant on
the bike and he does not know what happened thereafter.
During the cross-examination by the learned advocate for
the accused, the witness has stated that in his presence, no
incident had occurred and he is known to the complainant
as he is his neighbour.
7.3 PW4 - Ritaben Manishkumar Kapadia examined at Exh.
36 is the wife of the complainant and she has stated that
her husband came home and informed her about the
incident. That he was taken for treatment to Ahmedabad
Civil Hospital and admitted as an indoor patient. During the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1160/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/08/2025
undefined
cross-examination, the witness has stated that at the place
of incident, there are a number of shops and she does not
know what time her husband came home.
7.4 PW5 - Vijaykumar Shankarji Thakore examined at
Exh. 37 has stated that on 07.09.2014, he was going home
at around 08.00 pm on his motorcycle and at that time, he
saw the accused assaulting the complainant and he halted
his motorcycle and intervened and when the complainant
started running towards his house, the accused took a
stone and threw it on the back of the complainant. The
accused also threatened to kill the complainant. He went
behind the complainant to his house and the complainant
told him about the incident. During the cross-examination,
the witness has admitted that the place of incident is the
main road from Gandhinagar to Chandkeda and is teeming
with people and vehicles. The lights in the complex and the
shops are switched on around 07.00 pm and the witness
has denied that near the place of incident, there is a ditch.
He had gone to the house of the complainant after four to
five days and his statement was recorded by the police at
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1160/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/08/2025
undefined
that place and the police had called him to the house of the
complainant.
7.5 PW6 - Dr. Chandrakant Rajabhai Makwana examined
at Exh. 38 is the CMO at Civil Hospital, Ahmedabad and
has stated that on 07.09.2014, at around 10.00 pm, he was
on duty when Manishkumar Kanubhai Kapadia was
brought by his relative Natubhai B. Parmar for treatment. In
the history, the patient has stated that at around 08.00 pm,
while he was at Hari Om Nagar Part 2, No. 4, Motera village
and was at the entrance of his society, Deepubhai came in a
drunken state and threw bricks on him and assaulted him
and injured him. On examination, there was tenderness on
the centre of chest without any external injury marks,
tenderness on the centre of the back, swelling over the right
foot of about 4 cm x 3 cm with pain and immobility and
abrasion over the base of little finger of right foot of about 1
cm x 1 cm. The x-ray showed a displaced fracture through
the posterior aspect of 5th rib on right side and an
undisplaced fracture through right lateral malleolus. The
witness has produced the medical certificate of the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1160/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/08/2025
undefined
complainant at Exh. 40. During the cross-examination by
learned advocate for the accused, the witness has stated
that he had given the treatment on an OPD basis and the
patient was conscious and could speak properly. In the
history, the patient did not say on which part of his body
was the brick thrown and the injury nos. 1 to 3 were simple
injuries. The witness has admitted that if a person slipped
from a bike, he would sustain injuries on his legs and also
sustain a fracture and if a person with a bike falls in a
ditch, he would sustain injuries as the complainant.
7.6 PW7 - Kantibhai Babardas Rawat examined at Exh. 44
is the PSI who has recorded the complaint of the
complainant.
7.7 PW8 - Lakshmanbhai Becharbhai Rathod examined at
Exh. 47 is the Junior Clerk at the Social Welfare Office and
he has identified the caste certificate produced at Exh. 28.
The witness has stated that the caste certificate was given
from their office on 24.06.2004 on the basis of the school
leaving certificate of the complainant.
7.8 PW9 - Shatrughan Ramsamuj Tiwari examined at Exh.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1160/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/08/2025
undefined
49 is the PSO who has registered the complaint and has
produced the extract of the Station Diary at Exh. 50 and the
FIR at Exh. 51.
7.9 PW10 - Jagdishbhai Chunilal Patel examined at Exh.
52 is the Investigating Officer who has narrated the
procedure undertaken by him during investigation. During
the cross-examination by the learned advocate for the
accused, the witness has stated that in the complaint, the
name of Vijaybhai Shankarbhai did not emerge as a witness
and it was found that the accused and the complainant
were the residents of the same society and were friends.
During investigation, no stone, brick or bike was seized as
muddamaal.
8. On minute appreciation of the entire evidence of the
prosecution, the complainant PW1 - Manishkumar Kanaiyal
Kapadia in his deposition at Exh. 26 has not stated that the
accused hurled any caste slurs at the time of the incident.
PW5 - Vijaykumar Shankarji Thakor examined at Exh. 37
has stated before the learned Trial Court that he is an
eyewitness to the incident but the Investigating Officer has
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1160/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/08/2025
undefined
categorically stated that the name of Vijaykumar Shankarji
Thakor did not emerge as an eyewitness to the incident
during investigation. It has also emerged on record that the
said Vijaykumar Shankarji Thakor was a neighbor of the
complainant and if the deposition of the Medical Officer
PW6 - Dr. Chandrakant Rajabhai Makwana and the
medical certificate at Exh. 40 is perused, he has stated that
the complainant was brought to the hospital by one
Natubhai B. Parmar but the said Natubhai Parmar has not
been examined as a witness before the learned Trial Court.
In the entire evidence, it has come on record that the place
where the incident occurred was in front of a complex and
there were a number of shops and the road is the main
road between Chandkeda and Gandhinagar and is teeming
with people and vehicles at all times but no independent
witnesses have been examined before the learned Trial
Court. As per the medical certificate, there was a fracture
on the ankle of the complainant but there are no allegations
about any injury caused on the ankle of the complainant.
In the complaint, the complainant has stated that he and
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1160/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/08/2025
undefined
his friend Shishir Kantilal Vaghela were going to take a
zerox of a document towards Chandkeda - Motera and as
per the case of the prosecution, Shishir Kantilal Vaghela is
an eyewitness to the entire incident but he has not been
examined before the learned Trial Court. The entire
evidence does not prove the case against the accused
beyond reasonable doubts.
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
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1160/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/08/2025
undefined
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 (Atrocity) Judge, and 4 th
Additional Sessions Judge, Gandhinagar in Special
(Atrocity) Case No. 33/2014 on 29.06.2017, 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
