Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Pravinbhai Prabhubhai Velani on 6 August, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/430/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/08/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 430 of 2011
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE S.V. PINTO Sd/-
================================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
No
==========================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
PRAVINBHAI PRABHUBHAI VELANI & ORS.
================================================================
Appearance:
MS. CHETNA SHAH, APP for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR ASHISH M DAGLI for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3,4,5
RULE SERVED for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 2,3,4,5
================================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE S.V. PINTO
Date : 06/08/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant - complainant under
Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the
judgement and order of acquittal passed by learned Additional Sessions
Judge & Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court No. 2, Bhavnagar Camp at
Botad (hereinafter referred to as "the learned Trial Court") in Sessions
Case No. 52 of 2009 on 29.12.2010, whereby, the learned Trial Court has
acquitted the respondents for the offence punishable under Sections 365,
397 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as the
IPC).
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/430/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/08/2025
undefined
1.1 The respondents are hereinafter referred to as the accused as they
stood in the rank and file 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 15-11-2008, at around 17:00 hours, the accused Nos. 1, 2, 3,
and 5 came from Dhrufaniya village and abducted witness Prabhubhai
Tapubhai and took him from the field of the complainant - Madhuben
wife of Meghjibhai Dayabhai Makwana and assaulted him with sticks and
pipes. The accused No. 4 snatched away the Nokia mobile phone of the
complainant. The complainant filed the complaint on 15-11-2008 at the
Gadhada Police Station under Sections 365, 397 and 114 of the Indian
Penal Code, 1860, which came to be registered as Gadhada Police Station
at I C.R.No. 166 of 2008.
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, Gadhada and as the said offences against the accused
were exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the case was committed
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/430/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/08/2025
undefined
to the Sessions Court, Bhavnagar Camp at Botad as per the provisions of
Section 209 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and case was registered
Sessions Case No. 52 of 2009.
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. 7 was framed
against the accused and the statements of the accused were recorded at
Exhs. 9 to 12 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 fifteen oral evidence and twelve
documentary evidences to bring home charge against the accused 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 were recorded, wherein, the accused denied all
the evidence of the prosecution on record. 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 accused from all the charges
leveled against them.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/430/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/08/2025
undefined
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 Ms. Chetna Shah for the appellant - State,
learned advocate Mr. Ashish Dagli for the respondent. 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 Ms. Chetna Shah has taken this Court through the
entire evidence of the prosecution on record of the case and submitted
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/430/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/08/2025
undefined
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. Ashish Dagli for the respondents 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
acquittal appeals in the case of Chandrappa & Ors. Vs. State of
Karnataka reported in 2007 (4) SCC 415, wherein, the Apex Court has
observed as under: -
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/430/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/08/2025
undefined
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.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/430/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/08/2025
undefined
(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 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 appre-
ciation, 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, the prosecution has examined Prosecution Witness No.1
Madhuben Meghjibhai at Exh. 19 and the witness is the complainant and
she has stated that she was residing at the field of Prabhubhai Tapubhai
with her brother Rajubhai. At the time of the incident, her brother
Rajubhai and Prabhubhai Tapubhai were at the field, the accused came on
motorcycles and made Prabhubhai sit in the middle. They asked
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/430/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/08/2025
undefined
Prabhubhai to whom had he mortgaged the field and 4 of them started
assaulting Prabhubhai with sticks and pipes. She intervened and the
accused No. 3 threw her down and sat on her and tried to strangulate her.
The accused No. 4 took a stick and assaulted her on the leg and thereafter
they made Prabhubhai Tapubhai sit on the motorcycle forcibly and took
him away. The accused No. 4 snatched her Nokia mobile phone and she
has filed the complaint, which is produced at Exh.20.
During the cross-examination by the learned advocate for the
accused, the witness has stated that Prabhubhai Tapubhai has no sight in
one eye and he is the father of the accused No. 1.The accused Nos. 2, 3
and 4 are the nephews of Prabhubhai Tapubhai and the accused No. 1 is
the only son of Prabhubhai Tapubhai. The accused No. 1 and his wife
were residing at the same field and doing farming work and her brother
Rajubhai was an employee of Labhubhai when she was injured.
10.1 Prosecution Witness No. 2 - Rajubhai Meghjibhai examined
at Exh.21 is the brother of the complainant and an eyewitness to the
incident and he has supported the case of the prosecution.
During the cross-examination by the learned advocate for the
accused, he has stated that Prabhubhai was also residing in one room at
the field and the accused No. 1 is the only son of Prabhubhai Tapubhai
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/430/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/08/2025
undefined
who is also residing on the same field and doing farming work. The
accused Nos. 2, 3 and 4 are the nephews of Prabhubhai Tapubhai and he
does not know Labhubhai Polabhai. He knows Chimanbhai who is a
Police man and he had phoned Labhubhai Ahir after going to Gadhda and
found that his sister was admitted in the hospital and when he went to the
hospital Labhubhai Ahir was present.
10.2 Prosecution Witness No. 3 - Prabhubhai Tapubhai examined
at Exh.22 is the victim as per the case of the prosecution and he has stated
that he had given his field to Labhubhai Ahir for tilling and would receive
one third of the agricultural produce. Labhubhai had engaged Madhuben
and her brother Rajubhai to work in the field and look after the field and
the accused No. 1 is his son. He has a quarrel with his son about the field
and on the date of the incident the accused came on the motorcycle and
made him sit on the motorcycle and took him to his field. They inquired
from him whether he had sold or mortgaged the field but he did not reply
to them and they assaulted him. They took him and made him sleep on
throne from night till morning 5 pm. Thereafter, they all went away and
one police vehicle came and his son was caught by the police and he was
taken to the hospital at Gadhada.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/430/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/08/2025
undefined
During the cross examination by the learned advocate for the
accused, the witness has stated that his wife has expired and he is residing
alone and the accused No. 1 is his only son who is doing agricultural
work. The field where the incident occurred is the only field in his
ownership and Chimanbhai, who is a Policeman. His brother
Karamsinhbhai Tapubhai has executed a sale deed for the field in favour
of Chimanbhai. Savitaben - the wife of Chimanbhai has filed a case in
the Civil Court at Gadhada against him and there is also a case filed
against Labubhai Polabhai Ahir, the accused and himself regarding the
land. Labubhai Polabhai had also filed a case against him and he has filed
a reply in the same along with the accused. Earlier, he was injured in an
accident and he is illiterate. Chimanbhai police has been transferred to
Mahuva and on the day of deposition, the witness had come straight from
Mahuva. There are a number of fields surrounding the place of incident
and there are people present in the field and when he was made to sit on
the thorns, he did not shout and did not tell anyone about the incident.
10.3 Prosecution Witness No. 4 - Lakhabhai Kanabhai examined
at Exh. 23 and Prosecution Witness No. 5 - Budhabhai Bhakabhai
examined at Exh. 25 are the panchwitnesses of the panchnama of the
place of offence, which is produced at Exh 24. Both the witnesses have
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/430/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/08/2025
undefined
not supported the case of prosecution and have been declared hostile.
10.4 Prosecution Witness No. 6 - Bhimjibhai Merabhai
examined at Exh 26 is the panchwitness of the recovery panchnama,
which is produced at Exh. 27. The witness has not supported the case of
prosecution and has been declared hostile.
10.5 Prosecution Witness No. 7 - Gokulbhai Togabhai examined
at Exh 28 and Prosecution Witness No. 8 - Hirabhai Popatbhai examined
at Exh.30 are the panchwitness of the arrest panchnama by which the
accused No. 1 has been arrested, which is produced at Exh 29. The
witnesses hav not supported the case of prosecution and have been
declared hostile.
10.6 Prosecution Witness No. 9 - Labhubhai Polabhai examined
at Exh. 31 has stated that on the day of incident Madhuben, telephoned
him and had told him that the nephews of Prabhubhai had come to assault
him and thereafter the phone was switched off. On the next day when he
came to the village he was informed that Madhuben was in the hospital
and he went to meet her and she informed him about the incident.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/430/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/08/2025
undefined
During the cross-examination by the learned advocate for the
accused, the witnesses has stated that he had not executed any deed, while
giving the field to Madhuben and he had employed the brother of
Madhuben. There are civil litigations about the field pending before the
Civil Court Gadhda.
10.7 Prosecution Witness No. 10 - Dr. Akhileshkumarsinh
Rampatisinh examined at Exh. 32 was working as a Medical Officer at
CHC Gadhda on 15.04.2008. The witness has stated that at around 5.15
pm Prabhubhai Tapubhai Velani resident of Dhrufaniya was brought for
treatment and in the history, he has stated that he was assaulted. He had
an edema on the right hand dorsal side with abrasion, 0.25 cm, swelling
over left lower foot 7 cm above left ankle on the lateral side 3 cm
transverse and an abrasion on the right thigh above right knee of 3 cm
diameter. The injuries could be sustained by a blunt object and were
simple in nature and may recover within 7 days. The patient was treated
as an outdoor patient and discharged on 14.11.2008 at around 9.15 pm.
The witness has produced the Medical Certificate of Prabhubhai
Tapubhai at Exh.34. On 14.11.2008 at around 9.15 pm. Madhuben
Meghjibhai Makwana had come for treatment with a history of assault
injury. She had an abrasion over right lower leg 2 cm x 1 cm about 10 cm
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/430/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/08/2025
undefined
above the ankle joint, an abrasion over the left lower leg 2 cm x 1 cm
transverse and a bruise over the right foot upper part. The injuries were
simple in nature and could be sustained by a blunt object and would
recover within 7 days with no complication at all. The witness has
produced medical certificate of Madhuben Meghjibhai at Exh.37
During the cross examination by the learned advocate for the
accused, the witness has admitted that, in the history, none of the patients
have stated when they were injured and by what weapon, they were
injured and they did not name the person who had assaulted them. In the
medical certificate produced at Exh 34 and 37, the edge of the injury is
not shown and the type of abrasion is not mentioned in the certificate.
The injuries sustained by both the patients could be sustained by an
accidental fall and patient Madhuben Meghjibhai Makwara did not come
with a police yadi but came directly for treatment.
10.8 Prosecution Witness No. 11 - Rajubhai Danabhai was
examined at Exh. 38 and Prosecution witness No. 12 Vallabhbhai
Jadhavbhai was examined at Exh. 40 are the panchwitnesses of the arrest
panchnama, by which, the accused No. 2 to 4 were arrested and produced
at Exh. 39. Both the witnesses have not supported the case of the
prosecution and have been declared hostile.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/430/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/08/2025
undefined
10.9 Prosecution Witness No. 13 - Bajiyabhai Dungarsinhbhai
Pawar Buckle No. 1563 examined at Exhibit 42 is the PSO, who had
registered the incident.
10.10 Prosecution Witness No. 14 - Imtiyazbhai Mahebubbhai
Kodhiya examined at Exh. 44 is the Investigation 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 in the complaint, the complainant did
not name the accused No. 4 as the person, who had snatched her mobile
and Rajubhai Meghjibhai did not specifically state who had snatched the
mobile of Madhuben Meghjibhai. The other witnesses Kalubhai
Merabhai, Babubhai Jethsurbhai and Prabhubhai Tapubhai did not state
that the mobile phone of the complainant was snatched by anyone and at
the time of the incident, Chimanbhai Babubhai was working as a Head
Constable in the Gadhda Police Station. After the incident, the accused
Dhribhai Karamshibhai Velani and his wife had filed a application
before the witness against Chimanbhai Babubhai Gohil and had also
made representations to the D.S.P., Bhavnagar and the allegation was that
Chimanbhai Babubhai Gohil was using Madhuben Meghjibhai and
Labhubhai Polabhai to snatch away their agricultural land and pursuant to
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/430/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/08/2025
undefined
which Chimanbhai was transferred from Gadhada to Mahuva. The
witness has admitted that Labubhai Polabhai, in his statement, has stated
that on 14.11.2008 at around 5.15 pm Madhuben had telephoned the
witness from her mobile phone No. 99044-59817 and had informed him
about the incident.
10.11 Prosecution Witness No. 15 - Najabhai Chhanabhai
Chauhan examined at Exh. 48 is the Investigating Officer, who had partly
investigated the incident.
After the entire evidence of the prosecution was recorded and the
closing pursis was filed by the learned APP, the further statement of the
accused was recorded wherein the accused denied all the evidence of the
prosecution and the accused No. 1 has stated that the complainant is
involved and witness Labhubhai Polabhai has filed a civil suit before the
Court of the Principal Civil Judge Gadhada at Bhavnagar and has
produced a copy of the plaint, written statement and a copy of the
injunction application.
11. On minute appreciation of the entire evidence of the
prosecution, it is on the record that there is a land dispute regarding the
agricultural land of Prabhubhai Tapubhai and the accused No. 1 is the son
of Prabhubhai Tapubhai. The accused No. 2, 3 and 4 are the nephews of
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/430/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/08/2025
undefined
Prabhubhai Tapubhai and Karamshibhai Tapubhai - the brother of
Prabhubhai Tapubhai has executed a Sale Deed in favor of Chimanbhai
Babubhai Gohil, Head Constable, regarding the land. The dispute
regarding the land is existing between the parties and Prabhubhai
Tapubhai had given the land to witness Labhubhai Polabhai, who had
hired the complainant Madhuben Meghijibhai and her brother. If the
entire evidence is perused, the evidence of the complainant Madhuben
Meghjibhai is not trustworthy as she has stated that her Nokia mobile
phone was snatched by the accused No. 4 but in the complaint she had
not named the accused No. 4 as the person who had snatched the mobile
phone and has not described the person who had snatched the mobile
phone. It has also emerged on record that the incident has occurred at
17:00 hours and immediately thereafter at 17:15 hours, the complainant
Madhuben Meghjibhai had telephoned witness Labhubhai Polabhai from
her mobile number to inform him about the incident. Hence, it has
emerged on record that she was in possession of her mobile phone and it
was not snatched by anyone and the say of the complainant that her
mobile phone was snatched is not true. Moreover, the complainant and
Parbhubhai Tapubhai were taken to the CHC, Gadhada but none of them
have named any of the accused as the person who have assaulted them
before the Medical Officer. Admittedly they were known to the accused
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/430/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/08/2025
undefined
and the accused No. 1 is the son of Parbhubhai Tapubhai and the accused
No. 2, 3 and 4 are the nephews of Parbhubhai Tapubhai but they have not
named any of the accused as the person who has assaulted them. In the
evidence of Madhuben Meghjibhai, she has stated that the accused No. 3
threw her down and sat on her and tried to strangulate her but in the
Medical Certificate produced at Exh. 37, there is no injury on the neck of
the complainant and no treatment was given to the complainant. It has
also emerged on record that Chimanbhai Babubhai, who was working as
a police and had got the sale deed executed in his favour by
Karamshibhai Tapubhai, the brother of Parbhubhai Tapubhai who was in
possession of the land and after the incident the accused No. 3 and his
wife had filed a complaint before the Investigating Officer and also
before the Superintendent of Police, Bhavnagar and he was transferred
from Gadhada to Mahuva and thereafter on the date of the deposition,
Parbhubhai Tapubhai had come to the Court from Mahua. The entire
evidence has been discussed and appreciated in detail by the learned Trial
Court.
12. 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
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/430/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/08/2025
undefined
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.
13. The impugned and order of acquittal passed by learned Additional
Sessions Judge & Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court No. 2, Bhavnagar
Camp at Botad in Sessions Case No. 52 of 2009 on 29.12.2010,, is hereby
confirmed.
14. Bail bond stands cancelled. Record and proceedings be sent back to
the concerned Trial Court forthwith.
Sd/-
(S. V. PINTO,J)
VVM
