Gujarat High Court
Bhagabhai Meragbhai Vadher vs The State Of Gujarat on 12 August, 2025
Author: Gita Gopi
Bench: Gita Gopi
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/605/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/08/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 605 of 2007
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE GITA GOPI
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
√
==========================================================
BHAGABHAI MERAGBHAI VADHER
Versus
THE STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR DEVANSH KAKKAD ADVOCATE WITH DENISH V MAVADHIYA(9207)
for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MS MONALI BHATT APP for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE GITA GOPI
Date : 12/08/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. The appellant-accused No.1 of the Atrocities
Case No.18/2005, was tried before the 2nd
Additional Sessions Judge, Veraval along with two
other accused for the offence punishable under
Sections 332, 186, 504, 506(2) and 114 of the
Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC'), Section 135
of the Bombay Police Act (for short 'B.P. Act')
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/605/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/08/2025
undefined
and Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and
the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities)
Act, 1989 (for short "Atrocities Act").
1.1 By a judgment and order dated 13.03.2007,
the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Veraval
acquitted accused Nos.2 and 3, while convicted
appellant-accused No.1 under Section 332 IPC with
sentence of three years rigorous imprisonment and
Rs.5,000/- fine with default stipulation of six
months rigorous imprisonment and under Section
186 of the IPC, three months rigorous
imprisonment and Rs.500/- fine and in default of
payment of fine fifteen days rigorous
imprisonment.
2. The appellant-accused No.1, has given the
challenge to the judgment and order under Section
374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
(for short 'Cr.P.C.'), on the ground that the
judgment and order of conviction passed by the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/605/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/08/2025
undefined
learned Trial Court Judge is unjust, arbitrary
and contrary to the materials on record and that
there are serious contradiction in the evidence
led by the prosecution and that the evidence of
the prosecution witness does not draw the
ingredients of Sections 332 and 186 IPC to
establish the offence against the appellant.
3. Learned advocate Mr. Devansh Kakkad with
learned advocate Mr. Denish V.Mavadhiya for the
appellant submitted that the complainant himself
has not supported the case of the prosecution.
Advcoate Mr. Kakkad stated that the complainant's
evidence would suggest that there was no such
intention of the accused to deter the complainant
from his public duty or to obstruct him in
performance of his duties.
3.1 Advocate Mr. Kakkad submitted that the
complainant has not sustained any injury, and the
identification of the accused also has not been
proved. The complainant was not even knowing all
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/605/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/08/2025
undefined
the accused and further the incident has taken
place late at night in the dark hours, therefore,
in the crowd the identification of the accused
becomes difficult.
3.2 Learned advocate Mr. kakkad further stated
that the complainant himself filed a purshis at
Exh.16 before the Trial Court and has compounded
the offence under Sections 504 and 114 of IPC,
since Sections 332, 186 and 506(2) IPC and that
of Atrocities Act and B.P. Act were not
compoundable, the learned Trial Court Judge
assuming that the accused had deterred the
complainant in his public duty, had convicted the
appellant. Advocate Mr. Kakkad submitted that the
conviction is not on appreciation of any evidence
but is merely on assumption, which is erroneous
on record and further stated that on such
assumption the sentence, which has been passed,
is disproportionate and very harsh, which would
not be consistent with the evidence that has been
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/605/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/08/2025
undefined
recorded by the Trial Court Judge of all the
witnesses.
3.3 Advocate Mr. Kakkad submitted that the
complainant's evidence at Exh.17 as PW4, itself
suggests that there were three people, who had
questioned him regarding the often power cut in
the electricity supply. Mr. Kakkad thus, stated
that it is a normal course of people's behaviour
to question the person on duty, when electric
supply often get closed in the area, which has
also been admitted by the complainant himself,
that they often get confronted by such kind of
questions by the people.
3.4 Mr. Kakkad, learned advocate submitted that
the dispute did arise, as all the people gathered
there and therefore, it was informed to the
higher officers, who had asked for registration
of the complaint, thus, on the next day the FIR
was registered.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/605/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/08/2025
undefined
3.5 Referring to the medical certificate Exh.24,
Mr. Kakkad submitted that the history was given
of the assault of fisticuffs, however, the
medical officer has very categorically noted of
no visible external injury. As per complainant
himself, he was in the crowd and therefore
because of the push he had fallen down. Mr.
Kakkad stated that there was no specific injury
attributed to the present appellant and further
submitted that no case under Atrocities Act has
been believed by the learned Trial Court Judge,
and therefore, the evidence was not considered
under Section 506(2) IPC. Mr. Kakkad stated that
though prima facie there was no evidence to
convict the appellant for any obstruction in
public duty or to deter the complainant in
performing his duty as a public servant, only on
a moral ground the conviction was followed on the
basis of assumption.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/605/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/08/2025
undefined
4. Per contra, learned APP Ms. Monali Bhatt by
referring to the observation of the learned Trial
Court Judge submitted that the judgment is on
appreciation of evidence of the complainant as
well as P.W.8 - Pankajkumar Girjashanker Joshi,
who was a Deputy Engineer at Talala Gujarat
Electricity Office and P.W.10 - Arvindkumar
Mansukhlal Pader, who too was a Deputy Engineer
at Junagadh office.
4.1 Learned APP Ms. Bhatt submitted that
immediately the complainant had informed about
the incident to the officers and the complainant
himself in his evidence-in-chief had specifically
stated about accused No.1, who had come near him
and therefore, complainant was constrained to
park his motorcycle. APP Ms. Bhatt stated that
accused No.1 had questioned the complainant about
the power cut and had also abused and pushed him
down by beating him as well as by giving kick and
fist blows, such evidence had come on record
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/605/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/08/2025
undefined
during the trial. Thus, on that basis Ms. Bhatt
submitted that the conviction was ordered with
the sentence as followed.
4.2 Referring to the evidence of P.W.8 and
P.W.10, learned APP Ms. Bhatt stated that
immediately the incident was informed to the
officer and the evidence came on record by way of
P.W.10 that the complainant was on duty and
necessary attendance register (Exh.33) was
produced on record to show the time of duty. The
incident, corroborated with the fact that he was
on duty, itself proves the offence under Sections
186 and 332 IPC of the obstruction in public duty
and that the appellant had deterred complainant
from performing his duty had been proved.
5. After hearing both the sides, perused the
impugned judgment and order. The learned Trial
Court Judge has not believed the case of any
insult in public view under the Atrocities Act,
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/605/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/08/2025
undefined
observing that such kind of dispute do arise, but
such quarrel could not be on account of the
person being the member of Scheduled Caste, thus,
the offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the
Atrocities Act was not believed. The settlement
under Sections 504 and 114 of IPC was raised
before the Trial Court and finding it
compoundable, it was allowed.
5.1 The charge was framed under Exh.1 against
three of the accused noting that on 26.11.2003 at
about 22.30 hours at the outskirt village
Matasuriya, opposite the bus-stand, on the road,
when the complainant as helper of GEB was on duty
as a public servant, at that time, all the
accused, abetting each other, with criminal
intention had abused the complainant and had
given the cause for incitement and threatened to
take his life, and had assaulted with the weapon
like stick and caused injury, thereby, were found
to have deterred and obstructed in his public
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/605/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/08/2025
undefined
duty.
5.2 The allegation is jointly against three of
them in abetment. The allegation further is that
they were wielded with sticks, and assault was
with the stick. Exh.24, the medical certificate
of community health center does not refer to any
assault by stick. The history suggests that it
was kick and fist blow. Further Exh.24 notes that
there were no visible external injury. In view of
the certificate at Exh.24 the injury, as alleged
could not be said to be proved. Further, the
history does not specify of assault by all the
accused or specifically by the present appellant.
5.3 The deposition of the complainant as P.W.4
suggests that he was on motorcycle, but at that
time when the alleged incident had taken place
the complainant was not actually performing any
public duty, however, it can be said that he was
on his duty at that time, which could be proved
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/605/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/08/2025
undefined
by the evidence of attendance register produced
by P.W.10 at Exh.33.
5.4 The cross-examination shows that there was
crowd, which had gathered. The witness as
complainant also stated that none of them from
the crowd had stated any abusive words in the
form of casteist remarks. This itself proves that
only three of the accused were not present. The
question was regarding stoppage of power supply
and the complainant has affirmed that many times
people would come before him and would request
him for continuing the power supply. In the
cross-examination, he has affirmed that at the
time of incident many people had gathered there
and there was outcry and he was pushed by some
unknown person from the crowd and therefore, he
got hurt.
5.5 There is no any specific allegation against
accused No.1. In the cross-examination,
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/605/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/08/2025
undefined
complainant further affirmed that on the basis of
suspicion, he had named him, but actually accused
No.1 had not beaten him. He also affirmed that he
was not knowing the unknown persons and could
also not specifically state whether accused Nos.2
and 3 were present there.
5.6 The complainant appears to have not reached
his workplace. He stated that none of the accused
had stopped him in performing of the duty.
However, the crowd had gathered there and because
of hustle, it disturbed him and he went in
depression and therefore, he had not attended his
workplace. It appears that P.W.8 - Pankajkumar
Joshi was informed about the incident, since the
complainant at that time was working as Rural
Helper in G.E.B. office and his duty of work was
for six villages and his work was for supply of
power. According to P.W.8, the incident had
occurred on 26.11.2003, but he was informed about
the same on the next day i.e. on 27.11.2003 by
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/605/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/08/2025
undefined
his Junior Engineer (P.W.10) as the dispute of
power supply. He reiterated the information given
to him in his deposition. P.W.8 was not an eye
witness to the incident. He stated in his
evidence-in-chief that the person alleged had not
beaten the complainant with the stick. He had
also affirmed that he has not stated in his
statement before the police of any obstruction in
the service duty of the complainant as a public
servant.
5.7 P.W.10 has informed about the information,
which he received of the incident. He was
informed by lineman - Kalubhai. P.W.10 is not an
eye witness to the incident. Kalubhai Makwana,
was examined as P.W.7 in the Court, his evidence
clearly shows that he has not named any of the
accused before the Court. While the evidence
suggests that the complainant before the officer
had stated that there was a dispute and he wanted
to file a police complaint, but had not given the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/605/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/08/2025
undefined
names of the persons, who had raised the dispute,
nor the complainant had informed about the
incident, how it had occurred.
5.8 From the evidence of P.W.10, it also
transpires, that often people would come and meet
the officers, in cases of cut in power supply in
villages. One of the rickshaw man - Rameshbhai
Somabhai (PW6) was examined, but he has also not
supported the prosecution case. He stated that he
had heard it from the public, but had not seen
the incident.
5.9 In view of the evidence, as referred
hereinabove, the complaint appears to be filed
since the complainant was late in his duty. The
dispute arose because of power-cut and people had
gathered questioning him of the cut in power
supply. His own deposition suggests that he got
stressed because of questioning of the people and
in depression he could not go on his duty. At the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/605/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/08/2025
undefined
time when the incident occurred, it cannot be
said that he was actually performing any public
duty. His evidence shows that he was on his motor
vehicle. The evidence of P.W.10 also suggests
that it was very normal for people to question
them about the cut in power supply. The medical
evidence at Exh.24 does not show any injury and
the evidence itself is not clear about, who had
pushed the complainant to sustain any injury.
Accused Nos.2 and 3 along with accused No.1 and
crowd was also there. It has not become clear, as
to who had injured or pushed the complainant.
Though, the prosecution case states that all
three accused had come with sticks, no injury has
been caused by the stick. The prosecution has
failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt.
Most of the witnesses have not supported the
prosecution case, even the complainant's evidence
clarifies that the crowd was there. Though, the
settlement purshis was filed, but it cannot be
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/605/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/08/2025
undefined
observed from the examination-in-chief that under
such settlement, the complainant has not stated
the facts, which had actually transpired.
5.10 The cross-examination further clarifies
that the incident had occurred when people had
gathered there and had asked him about the often
cut in power supply. The complainant himself
clarifies that he was not obstructed or deterred
from performing his duty, but because of the
crowd and the outburst, he got disturbed and
under depression he could not go for his duty and
the incident was only because of cut in power
supply.
6. In view of the above observations, this Court
is of an opinion that the learned Trial Court
Judge has committed error in appreciating the
evidence. The conviction is merely on
assumptions, while no documentary or oral
evidence established the case on record. The
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/605/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/08/2025
undefined
testimony of the complainant as well as the
prosecution witnesses could not prove the case
against the present appellant. There is no
credible evidence to convict the accused.
7. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The
conviction and sentence of the accused passed by
the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Veraval
vide judgment and order dated in 13.03.2007 in
Atrocity Case No.18/2005 is set aside. The
appellant is acquitted from all the charges. Bail
bound stands discharged. Registry is directed to
send the Record and Proceedings back to the
concerned Trial Court forthwith.
(GITA GOPI,J)
Pankaj/10
