Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Shailesh @ Sonu Vidhyadhar Durva on 12 August, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/764/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/08/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL (AGAINST ACQUITTAL) NO. 764 of 2017
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE S.V. PINTO Sd/-
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
No
==========================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
SHAILESH @ SONU VIDHYADHAR DURVA & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR. PRANAV DHAGAT, APP for the Appellant(s) No. 1
BAILABLE WARRANT SERVED for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No.
1,2,3,4
MR RAJAN N THACKER for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3,4
MR RAKESH B SHARMA for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3,4
RULE SERVED for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 5
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE S.V. PINTO
Date : 12/08/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant State under Section 378
of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the judgment and order
passed by learned 9th Additional (Ad-hoc) Sessions Judge, Gandhidham-
Kachchh (hereinafter referred to as "the learned trial Court") in Sessions
Case No. 11 of 2008 on 18.03.2017 whereby, the learned trial Court has
acquitted the respondents for the offence punishable under Sections 143,
147, 149, 323, 504, 506(2) and 427 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860
(hereinafter referred to as the IPC) and Section 3(1)(10) of the Scheduled
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/764/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/08/2025
undefined
Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities), Act, 1889
(hereinafter referred to as the Atrocities Act).
1.1 The respondents are hereinafter referred to as the accused as they
stood in 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 31-08-2007, at around 10.45 hours, the accused formed an
unlawful assembly and armed themselves with belts and other weapons
and came to Office No. 5 on Plot No. 61 in Sector-9 at Gandhidham to
the office of the complainant Rajiben Kalidas Senma and assaulted the
complainant and her daughter Geetaben. The accused threatened the
complainant and her daughter to vacate the shop and caused injuries on
the face and back of the complainant and on the right shoulder and back
of daughter Geetaben. The accused abused and threatened to kill the
complainant and her daughter and caused damage by breaking the glass
in the office and also hurled caste- slurs against the complainant and her
daughter. The complainant filed a complaint at the Gandhidham Police
Station under Sections 143, 147, 149, 427, 323, 504 and 506 (2) of the
IPC and Section 3 (1)(15) of the Atrocity Act, which came to be
registered at Gandhidham Police Station I-C.R.No. 362 of 2007
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/764/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/08/2025
undefined
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, Gandhidham and as the said offences against the
accused was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the case was
committed to the Sessions Court, Gandhidham - Kachchh as per the
provisions of Section 209 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the case
was registered as Sessions Case No. 11 of 2008.
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. 14 was framed
against the accused and the statements of the accused were recorded at
Exhs. 15 to 19, 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 seventeen oral and fourteen
documentary evidences to bring home the charge against the accused and
after the learned Additional Public Prosecutor filed the closing pursis at
Exh. 159, 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 stepped
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/764/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/08/2025
undefined
into the witness box or examined witness and stated that a false case has
been filed against them. 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.
3. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said 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 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
and learned advocate Mr. Rajan N. Thacker with Mr. Rakesh Sharma for
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/764/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/08/2025
undefined
respondent Nos. 1 to 4 - original accused. Though served the respondent
No. 5 - original complainant has not appeared either in person or through
an advocate. 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 has 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.
6. Learned advocate learned advocate Mr. Rajan N. Thacker with Mr.
Rakesh Sharma for the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 submits that the judgment
and order has been passed after appreciation of all the evidence and the
learned Court has appreciated the evidence in proper perspective and
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/764/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/08/2025
undefined
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;
(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 iTimes New Romann 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.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/764/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/08/2025
undefined
(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
evidence of the prosecution on record, to bring home the charge against
the accused, the prosecution has examined Prosecution Witness No.1 -
Dr. Mithubhai Raisingbhai Jola at Exhibit 31 and the witness is the
Medical Officer, who was on duty at the Rambagh Government Hospital,
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/764/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/08/2025
undefined
Gandhidham - Kutch on 31-08-2007. The witness has stated that on 31-
08-2007, Jayesh Vidhyadhar Dubey, aged 18, resident of Anjar was
brought for treatment and he had an incised wound 2cm x 1cm on the
back of left hand and wrist. There was clotted blood and it was a fresh
injury caused by a sharp and cutting object. The injury was simple and
would heal within 7 days, if no complications arose. The witness has
produced the injury certificate of Jayesh Vidhyadhar Dubey at Exhibit 32.
On the same day Yogesh Vidhyadhar Dubey was also brought for
treatment and on examination he had an abrasion 0.5cm x 0.5cm on the
back side of the right hand. The injury could be caused by a hard and
blunt object and the injury was simple and would heal within 7 days if no
complications arose. On the same day at around 4:00 pm Rajiben Senma,
aged 60 and Geetaben Karsanbhai Senma, aged 37 years were brought for
treatment with a Yadi from Gandhidham Police Station. On examining
Rajiben Kalidas Senma, she had an abrasion, which was a nail mark on
the left side of the face and the injury could be caused by nails and also
abrasion nail marks on the left forearm laterally. The injuries were simple
and would heal within 7 days, if no complications arose. The injury
certificate of Rajiben Kalidas Senma is produced at Exhibit 34. On
examining Geetaben Karsanbhai Senma, she had a contusion 2cm x 2cm
on the right arm laterally, a contusion 2cm x 1cm on the back of left
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/764/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/08/2025
undefined
shoulder and multiple abrasions 0.5cm x 0.5cm on the right leg. The
injuries could be caused by a hard and blunt object, were simple in nature
and would heal within 7 days, if no complications arose. The witness has
produced the injury certificate of Geetaben Karsanbhai Senma at Exhibit
During the cross examination by the learned advocate for the
accused, the witness has stated that patients Jayesh and Yogesh had come
at around 11.50 hours and he had informed the PSO of the police station.
In the history, they had given a history of assault and Geetaben and
Rajiben were not admitted as indoor patients but were treated as OPD
patients. The injuries could be caused by any material lying in a closed
shop except the injury caused to Jayesh.
9.1 Prosecution Witness No. 2 - Hemantbhai Maldan Sharma
examined at Exhibit 37 is the panchwitness of the panchnama of the place
of offense which is produced at Exhibit 38.
During the cross examination by the learned advocate for the
accused, the witness has stated that Rajiben was breaking the lock of the
shop and with her there were 2-3 persons and he informed Vidyadhar and
told him that the lock of his shop was being broken. He is working in
Nilkanth Welding which is opposite the shop of Vidyadhar and the
accused are doing business in that shop in the name of Shreeji
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/764/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/08/2025
undefined
Refrigerators. The police had asked him to affix his signature on the
panchnama and at that time two refrigerators, s washing machine and
tables and chairs were lying in the shop. The witness has categorically
stated that he has never seen Rajiben in the shop where the accused were
doing business.
9.2 Prosecution Witness No. 3 - Kamleshbhai Bachubhai Soni
examined at Exhibit 39 is the panchwitness of the panchnama of the place
of offense produced at Exhibit 38 but the witness has not supported the
case of the prosecution and has been declared hostile.
9.3 Prosecution Witness No. 4 - Ajay Kanjibhai Desai
examined at Exhibit 40 and Prosecution Witness No. 10 Umarbhai Ismail
examined at Exhibit 54 are the panchwitnesses of the arrest panchnama
produced at Exhibit 41. Both the witnesses have not supported the case of
the prosecution and have been declared hostile.
9.4 Prosecution Witness No. 5 - Arjunsinh Bhuvneshwarsinh
examined at Exhibit 42 is an eye-witness as per the case of the
prosecution and was working in a shop in the same complex at the time of
the incident but the witness has not supported the case of the prosecution
and has been declared hostile.
During the cross examination by the learned APP, nothing to
support the case of the prosecution has come on record.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/764/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/08/2025
undefined
9.5 Prosecution Witness No. 6 - Neeraj Kailashbhai Dubey
examined at Exhibit 43 is also an eye-witness, who had gone to the
complex on the date of the incident but the witness has not supported the
case of the prosecution and has been declared hostile and in the cross
examination by the learned APP, nothing to support the case of the
prosecution has come on record.
9.6 Prosecution Witness No. 7 - Satishchandra Ramchandra
Dubey examined at Exhibit 44 has stated that his younger brother had a
shop in Transport Nagar and they had sold the welding machines to
Rajiben for Rs.50,000/- and Rajiben had given them Rs.45,000/- and she
had asked them to let go of Rs.5000/-.
During the cross examination by the learned advocate for the
accused, the witness has stated that the accused are the sons of his
younger brother and his brother is doing the business in that shop since
1987. Rajiben has never sat in the shop to do business and Rajiben was a
Police Constable, but she has been terminated from service. The witness
has admitted that Rajiben uses her influence and gets places vacated in
Gandhidam.
9.7 Prosecution Witness No. 8 - Vithaldas Shivji Thakkar is
examined at Exhibit 49 was working as a Deputy Mamlatdar in the
Mamlatdar office at Gandhidham and the witness has produced the caste
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/764/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/08/2025
undefined
certificate of the complainant at Exhibit 50.
9.8 Prosecution Witness No. 9 - Jagatidan Govinddan Charan
examined at Exhibit 51 is the P.S.I. , who has recorded the complaint of
the complainant, which is produced at Exhibit 52.
During the cross-examination by the learned advocate for the
accused, the witness has stated that the complainant Rajiben was earlier
working as a lady Police Constable in the police department and prior to
filing of the complaint, she did not make any call from her mobile phone
in the police station.
The accused No. 1 - Shailesh, accused No.2- Yogesh and accused
No. 3 - Jayesh had come to the police station to file a complaint and he
had recorded their complaint and it was registered in the NC register on
31-08-2007.
9.9 Prosecution Witness No. 11 - Narsinghraj Kesrimal
examined at Exhibit 55 was the owner of the shop and he has stated that
he is known to Vidyadhar Dubey and he had given Vidyadhar Dubey the
shop on rent. Vidyadhar Dubey had sublet the shop to Rajiben Senma and
they had a quarrel and they had thrown Rajiben out of the shop. In the
cross examination by the learned advocate for the accused, the witness
has stated that he has heard that Rajiben was earlier working in the police
department and Vidyadhar Ramchandra Dubey was his
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/764/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/08/2025
undefined
tenant and Rajiben was not a tenant in the shop. The shop belonged to his
son and he had the power of attorney of his son and sometimes Vidyadhar
used to be in the shop and sometimes his sons would sit in the shop for
business.
9.10 Prosecution Witness No. 12 -Hirjibai Bhanjibai Kangaria is
the PSO who has registered the complaint.
9.11 Prosecution Witness No. 13 - Rajiben Kalidas Senma
examined at Exhibit 90 is the complainant, who has narrated the facts of
the complaint produced at Exhibit 107. The witness has stated that on
31.08.2007, she was in her shop with her daughter and Munniben Mahant
and at that time at around 10.45 Sonu, Monu and Golu the three sons of
Vidyadhar Ramchandra Dubey, who are named Shailesh, Manoj and
Yogesh came along with four persons on motorcycles and Sonu, Monu
and Golu came into the shop and abused her and assaulted her with belts
and sticks. They broke the glass and asked her to vacate the shop and go
away and threatened to murder her. She and her daughter were injured on
the face, hands and back with belts and sticks and they caught hold of the
hair of her daughter and banged her head into the wall. She was also
injured with glass pieces on her face and the accused hurled caste-slurs
against her. Her spectacles were broken and she informed the police
station but nobody from the police station came. Shop No. 5 in Sector 9
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/764/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/08/2025
undefined
belonged to Vidyadhar Ramchandra Dubey, who is her brother and she
had purchased the shop from him and there is a litigation pending before
the Court at Gandhidham. She had informed Deepsinh on the telephone at
the police station and the mobile van came and brought them out of the
office as the accused were not allowing them to come out from the office.
The police took all of them in the mobile van to the police station and she
had recorded the complaint.
During the cross examination by the learned advocate for the
accused, the witness has stated that she is residing in plot No. 59,60, 12 /
B ward in Gandhidham and she had purchased the plots on a stamp paper
of Rs. 20/- and thereafter the document was registered. She is known to
Vidyadhar Dubey for the past 25 years and he used to reside with her in
her house for about 2 years. She had produced the papers of the shop and
she had filed a case under the Atrocity Act against Vidyadhar Dubey and
her sons, wherein, they were convicted and sentenced to imprisonment
punished for 6 months. She was working as an ASI in the Mahila Police.
9.12 Prosecution Witness No. 14 - Geetaben Karshanbhai Senma
is the daughter of the complainant and an eyewitness to the incident. The
witness has supported the case of the prosecution and during the cross
examination, she has stated that she is unmarried and her mother was
dismissed from the police department. Her mother was earlier dismissed
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/764/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/08/2025
undefined
and thereafter she was reinstated and was dismissed for the second time
from the police department. Sonu and his parents were tried in a case at
the Fast Track Court in Anjar, they were sentenced to 6 months of
imprisonment and in another case, they were acquitted. Regular Civil Suit
No. 40 of 2007 has been filed by the mother of Sonu i.e. Kusumben and
is pending before the Court of the Additional Senior Civil Judge at Anjar.
Regular Civil Suit No. 26 of 2009 has also been filed by them against
Kusumben and is pending before the Court of Additional Senior Civil
Judge Anjar at Kutch. In all about 6 cases have been filed between them
against each other and her mother does not have any relation with the
father of Sonu, Monu and Golu and since 2003 and they do not have any
family relation. The rent of the shop was being collected by Vidyadhar
Dubey and was being deposited in the Court and she does not know how
many shops are in the line of shop No. 5 and she does not know who are
the owners of Shop No. 4 and Shop No. 6 near Shop No. 5.
9.13 Prosecution Witness No. 15 - Munnidevi Dhanor Shukla
Mahator examined at Exhibit 141 is an eyewitness as per the case of the
prosecution. The witness has stated that Geetaben was working as an
L.I.C. agent and she had gone to Geetaben for LIC policy at the time of
the incident. Geetaben and her mother Rajiben were in the office and at
that time 3 boys came and had a discussion with Rajiben about some
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/764/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/08/2025
undefined
money. They also asked Rajiben why she was sitting in their office and
abused her and started quarreling with her. Two boys took their belts and
started assaulting them and Geetaben was injured on the right shoulder
and back. They telephoned three other boys and called them and at that
time Rajiben closed the glass door of the office and out of the six boys
somebody threw a stone and the glass door broke. The accused ran away
and Rajiben informed the police and the police came and took them to the
police station.
During the cross examination by the learned advocate for the
accused, the witness has stated that she knows the story of Vidyadhar and
she is known to Rajiben for 12 years. Rajiben was working in the police
department and the place of incident is known as Transport Nagar area.
When she went to the office Rajiben and her daughter were seated there
but she does not know the number of the office. Rajiben had tortured her
how to depose in Court.
9.14 Prosecution Witness No. 16 - Arjun Nagshi Kannar
examined at Exhibit 142 is also an eye-witness as per the case of the
prosecution and the witness has stated that at the time of the incident at
around 12 noon he was passing by and four to five boys came and
assaulted Rajiben and her daughter, who were sitting in a shop. He
intervened and he came to know that the quarrel was with regard to the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/764/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/08/2025
undefined
shop. He does not know the accused and could not identify them even if
they were shown to him.
During the cross examination by the learned advocate for the
accused, the witness has stated that he is known to Rajiben as he used to
repair her cars and the place of incident is a place, where there are
transport offices, garages and spare parts shops.
9.15 Prosecution Witness No. 17 - Pratapsingh Lakshmansingh
Chaudhary examined at Exhibit 155 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 panchnama of the place of
offence at Exhibit 38 the shop had a board of Shreeji Refrigeration and at
the time of the panchnama, there were goods relating to refrigeration in
the shop. He did not inquire about the ownership of the shop during
investigation and during investigation, it was found that the shop was
rented by a rent agreement by Vidyadhar Ramchandra Dubey. There was
no evidence that the shop was in the ownership or possession of the
complainant and during investigation, it was not found that what caste-
slurs were used by the accused. If specific words are not used, it would
not amount to a caste slurs.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/764/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/08/2025
undefined
10. On minute appreciation of the entire evidence of the prosecution,
as per the case of the complainant Rajiben, she and her daughter
Geetaben were sitting in the shop that belonged to her and the entire
dispute is with regards to the shop, but there is no iota of evidence that
the shop belonged to the complainant or that the complainant had taken
the shop on rent from the owner. In fact, the evidence that has come on
record is that the accused and their father Vidyadhar Dubey were running
the business in the name of Shreeji Refrigeration in the said Shop and as
per the panchnama of the place of offence produced at Exhibit 38, there
was a board of Shreeji Refrigeration on the shop and there were goods
relating to the refrigeration business in the shop. As per the say of the
complainant, she had purchased the shop from Vidyadhar Dubey, but
there is no evidence on record regarding the purchase of the shop or the
say of the complainant that she was the owner of the shop. Prosecution
Witness No.2 - Hemant Maldan Sharma has stated that he saw the
complainant and two to three other persons breaking the lock of the shop
and it has emerged on record that the complainant Rajiben Kadidas
Senma was earlier working in the police department and she was
terminated and thereafter reinstated and once again she was terminated
from her duty. Prosecution Witness No. 1 Dr. Mithubai Raisingbhai Jola
has stated that he had treated Jayesh Vidyadhar and Yogesh Vidyadhar
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/764/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/08/2025
undefined
i.e. the accused Nos. 3 and 4 and he had treated them at 10.45 in the
morning. The cross NC complaint has been recorded by the accused No.
1 against the complainant and her daughter and the same is produced at
Exhibit 158, wherein, it has stated that when the accused No. 1 Shailesh
@ Sonu Vidyadhar Dubey and his brother Yogesh @ Monu went to their
shop which was office No. 9 C in plot No. 61 at Gandhidam at 10.45,
their office was open and the complainant Rajiben and her daughter
Geetaben and one more lady were sitting there. They informed their
brother Jayesh @ Golu and he came with his friends to the office and
they went in the office and met the complainant and her daughter and
explained to them that they should leave the office, but the complainant
told them that the office was hers and she had purchased the office from
their father and she would not vacate the office. The complainant Rajiben
and her daughter started abusing them and pushing them and the other
lady who was present in the office went out of the office. As they were
pushed, the office glass broke and everyone started shouting and hence
they ran away and came to the police station to file the complaint against
Rajiben and her daughter who had abused them and pushed them and the
NC complaint was filed on 31.08.2007 at 10.45 am. Thereafter, they had
gone to the Rambagh Government Hospital for treatment. The complaint
of the complainant is filed in at 17.50 hours and it has emerged on record
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/764/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/08/2025
undefined
that no mobile call was made by the complainant to the police station.
The complainant has stated that she was assaulted with sticks and belts
but the medical certificates produced at Exhibit 34 of the complainant and
the medical certificate of Geetaben Karsanbhai Senma produced at
Exhibit 35 do not support their say and show that the injuries were merely
scratch marks and could be caused by nails. The learned trial Court has
discussed the entire evidence and appreciated all the oral and
documentary evidence on record.
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
learned Trial Court. This Court finds no reason to interfere with the
impugned judgment and order and the present appeal is devoid of merits
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/764/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/08/2025
undefined
and resultantly, the same is dismissed.
12. The impugned judgement and order of acquittal passed by passed
by learned 9th Additional (Ad-hoc) Sessions Judge, Gandhidham-
Kachchh in Sessions Case No. 11 of 2008 on 18.03.2017, is hereby
confirmed.
13. Bail bond stands cancelled. Record and proceedings be sent back to
the concerned Trial Court forthwith.
Sd/-
(S. V. PINTO,J)
VVM
