Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Jilubhai Tisubhai Aahir on 13 August, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/759/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/08/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 759 of 2011
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE S.V. PINTO
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting No
==========================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
JILUBHAI TISUBHAI AAHIR & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS. C.M. SHAH, APP for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR LR PATHAN(2370) 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
UNSERVED EXPIRED (R) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 6
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE S.V. PINTO
Date : 13/08/2025
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 Judge and Additional Sessions Judge, Bhavnagar
(hereinafter referred to as "the learned Trial Court") in
Special Atro. Case No. 17/2006 on 30.12.2010, whereby,
the learned Trial Court has acquitted the respondents for
the offence punishable under Sections 452, 504, 506(2) and
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/759/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/08/2025
undefined
114 of Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 135 of the BP Act
and Sections 3(1)(10)(11) of Schedule Caste and Schedule
Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter
referred to as "the Atrocity Act" for short).
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 18.03.2006 at around 09.00 am, Jayaben - the
sister of the complainant - Dineshbhai Manglabhai Viras
had gone to fill water at the village well at village Satpada,
Taluka Gariyadhar and the accused no. 5 abused her,
assaulted her and restrained her from drawing water from
the well. Jayaben returned home and after some time, the
accused nos. 1 to 4 illegally trespassed into the house of the
complainant and threw their vessels, broke the water pot
and caught hold of the plait of witness Ujiben, pulled her
and abused her and all the accused were armed with
weapons like sword, scythe, etc. and they hurled caste slurs
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/759/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/08/2025
undefined
against the complainant and his family members. The
complainant - Dineshbhai Manglabhai Viras filed the
complaint at the Gariyadhar Police Station under Section
452, 504, 506(2) and 114 of the Indian Penal Code, Section
135 of the BP Act and Section 3(1)(10)(11) of the Atrocity Act
which came to be registered at Gariyadhar Police Station I -
C.R. No. 24 of 2006.
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 Judicial
Magistrate First Class, Gariyadhar and as the said offences
against the accused were exclusively triable by the Court of
Sessions, the case was committed to the Sessions Court,
Bhavnaghar as per the provisions of Section 209 of Code of
Criminal Procedure and the case was registered as Special
Atro. Case No. 17/2006
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
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/759/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/08/2025
undefined
provided to the accused as per the provisions of Section 207
of the Code. A charge at Exh. 3 was framed against the
accused and the statements of the accused was recorded at
Exhs. 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 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 all the
accused from the charges levelled 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
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/759/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/08/2025
undefined
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 respondents. The case has been
proved beyond reasonable doubt and the prosecution has
successfully established the case against the respondents
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 respondent 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 and learned advocate Mr. L.R. Pathan for the
respondent nos. 1 to 5. 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
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/759/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/08/2025
undefined
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.
6. 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 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.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/759/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/08/2025
undefined
7. To prove the offence against the accused, the
prosecution has in all examined ten witnesses. PW1 -
Dineshbhai Manglabhai Viras examined at Exh. 10 is the
complainant and he has narrated the facts as stated in the
complaint which is produced at Exh. 14. The witness has
stated that all the accused were armed with weapons and
at the time of the incident he was at home when his sister
returned without filling water at the well. His sister had told
him, that the accused no. 5 - Rekhaben Jilubhai did not
allow her to fill water and hurled caste slurs against her
and abused her. He took his tempo and went away to
Palitana and when he returned at around 08.00 pm, he saw
his mother Ujiben, sister Jayaben and sister-in-law
Rekhaben standing outside of the house and they told him
to turn the tempo and take it to the Police Station. He took
all of them in the tempo to the Police Station and at that
time, the accused no. 3 - Ranjitsinh caught hold of the
handle of the tempo and asked him to wait. Ranjitsinh had
a scythe in his hand but he drove his tempo and went to
the Gariyadhar Police Station and on the way his mother
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/759/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/08/2025
undefined
Ujiben had told him that all the accused had assaulted
them, broke the water pot and threw their vessels in the
house and he filed the complaint which is produced at Exh.
14. During the cross-examination by the learned advocate
for the accused, the witness has stated that the well is
situated just opposite his house across the road and is at a
distance of 10 to 15 feet away from the bus stand. It is
situated on the Gariyadhar-Palitana road and is congested
and teeming with people and vehicles. His sister had told
him that there were many women filling water at the well.
That earlier he had filed a case under the Atrocity Act
against one Patel and had thereafter entered into a
compromise with him and at the time of the incident, he felt
that he had to file a case under the Atrocity Act. After the
incident of his sister Jayaben in the morning, he took his
tempo and went away and was out for the whole day. He is
not an eyewitness to the incident that occurred later and
his house is situated very near to the bus stand and if
anyone from the house would shout, a person at the bus
stand would hear the shouts. That he had returned home
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/759/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/08/2025
undefined
at around 08.00 pm and went to the Police Station after
that.
7.1 PW2 - Jayaben Manglabhai examined at Exh. 16 is
the sister of the complainant and has fully supported the
case of the prosecution. During the cross-examination, the
witness has stated that women from all castes come to the
well to fill water and the accused are residing at a distance
of about two to three minutes away from their house and
she is known to all the accused. That earlier she had filed a
case under the Atrocity Act against a person from the Koli
community but she doesn't know whether a compromise
was entered into between them. That if any person is
standing at the bus stand, they would be able to see the
women filling water at the well and at the time of the
incident, there were many women drawing water from the
well. None of the members from her community have ever
complained that they have been restrained from filling
water at the well and after the first incident in the morning,
they did not go anywhere to file any complaint and at the
time of the incident, there were many passengers at the bus
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/759/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/08/2025
undefined
stand. The second incident occurred at around 06.00 pm in
the evening and they shouted at that time, but nobody
came to their house.
7.2 PW3 - Rekhaben Anilbhai examined at Exh. 17 is the
sister-in-law of the complainant,and she has stated that at
around 06.00 pm, the accused came to her house, abused
them, caught hold of the plait of her mother-in-law and
pulled her and took her out of the house. The accused
broke the water pot and threw all the vessels and
thereafter, the accused abused them and went away. The
accused were armed with weapons. In the cross-
examination, the witness has admitted that the well is near
the bus stand and their house is near to the bus stand and
people from all community fill water at the well and if any
noise is made in their house, it would be heard at the bus
stand.
7.3 PW4 - Dalpatbhai Manglabhai examined at Exh. 18 is
the brother of the complainant and was not present at the
time of the incident. He is a hearsay witness and in the
cross-examination, he has admitted that he was out at the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/759/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/08/2025
undefined
time of the incident.
7.4 PW5 - Rudabhai Malabhai examined at Exh. 19 and
PW6 - Hipabhai Kamabhai examined at Exh. 21 are the
panch witnesses of the panchnama of the place of offence
which is produced at Exh. 20. Both the witnesses have not
supported the case of the prosecution and have been
declared hostile.
7.5 PW7 - Bhikhubhai Laxmanbhai Der examined at Exh.
30 is the PSI who has recorded the complaint of the
complainant and he has produced the fax message sent to
the Superintendent of Police, Bhavnagar at Exh. 31 and the
Special Report at Exh. 32. During the cross-examination by
the learned advocate for the accused the witness has stated
that the complainant came with his brother, sister and
family members and none of them had stated that they
wanted to go to the hospital for treatment.
7.6 PW8 - Arjanbhai Kankabhai Vagadiya examined at
Exh. 33 is the Investigating Officer who has narrated the
procedure undertaken by him during investigation. During
the cross-examination, the witness has stated that he had
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/759/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/08/2025
undefined
taken over the investigation on 19.03.2006 at around 09.00
am and at that time, he was a Deputy Superintendent of
Police and he was not a Special Officer of the SC/ST cell. He
had visited the place of offence and the well was at a
distance of about 50 to 60 feet away from the house of the
complainant and situated on the main road. During
investigation, no persons from the community of the
complainant had supported the case of the complainant and
no medical certificate of any witness was seized by him
during investigation. During investigation, it was not found
that any of the accused were under the influence of alcohol.
7.7 PW9 - Popatbhai Govindbhai examined at Exh. 42 and
PW10 - Rajubhai Dilubhai examined at Exh. 43 are the
panch witnesses of the arrest panchnama which is
produced at Exh. 34. Both the witnesses have not
supported the case of the prosecution and have been
declared hostile.
8. On appreciation of the entire evidence of the
prosecution, as per the case of the prosecution, the first
incident has occurred at around 09.00 am when Jayaben -
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/759/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/08/2025
undefined
the sister of the complainant - Dineshbhai Manglabhai
Viras went to fill water at the well and at that time, the
accused no. 5 restrained her from filling water and hurled
caste slurs against her and she returned without filling
water at the well. The second incident has occurred at
around 06.00 pm when the sister, mother and sister-in-law
of the complainant were at home and the accused nos. 2
and 3 armed with weapons came and abused them, threw
their vessels down and broke the water pot. Admittedly, the
complainant - Dineshbhai Manglabhai Viras is not an
eyewitness to any of the incident and when he returned at
around 08.00 pm, his mother, sister and sister-in-law told
him about the incident and he took them to the Police
Station and filed the complaint. The FIR is produced on
record and as per the FIR, the information has been
received at the Police Station on 18.03.2006 at around
23.30 hours. There is no explanation as to why when the
incident had occurred in the morning at 09.00 am at the
well and thereafter at 06.00 pm; the sister, mother or
sister-in-law of the complainant did not go to the Police
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/759/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/08/2025
undefined
Station to file the complaint. It has emerged on record that
PW2 - Jayaben Manglabhai had earlier filed a case under
the Atrocity Act against a person from the Koli community
and the complainant has also earlier filed a case under the
Atrocity Act against a person from the Patel community but
there is no explanation as to why they waited till 23.30
hours to file the complaint. The caste certificate of the
complainant is produced at Exh. 29 but the caste of the
complainant is not proved as no witnesses have been
examined to prove the caste certificate and as per the case
of the prosecution, the first incident occurred at the well in
the morning and at that time there were many women from
different communities who had come to fill water of the well
and there were many independent witnesses but none of
the witnesses have been examined before the learned Trial
Court. The second incident which as per the case of the
prosecution has occurred at around 06.00 pm at the
residence of the complainant which is in a residential area
and has many neighbours and there would be independent
persons around but no independent witnesses have been
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/759/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/08/2025
undefined
examined before the learned Trial Court. It has also
emerged on record in the deposition of the complainant -
Dineshbhai Manglabhai, PW2 - Jayaben Manglabhai, PW3
Rekhabhai Anilbhai and PW4 - Dalpatbhai Manglabhai that
the house is very near to the bus stand and if anyone
shouts in their house any person standing at the bus stand
would hear their shouts. The Investigating Officer has also
admitted that the house of the complainant is very near to
the bus stand and is situated on the main road which is the
road between Garihadar and Palitana and is always
teeming with vehicles and people but no independent
witnesses have been examined before the learned Trial
Court. Moreover, as per the case of the prosecution the
plait of Ujiben - the mother of the complainant was pulled
and she was dragged and thrown out of the house but
Ujiben has expired pending trial and her evidence could not
be recorded before the learned Trial Court. The entire
evidence of the prosecution has been discussed in detail by
the learned Trial Court.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/759/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/08/2025
undefined
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
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 Judge and Additional
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/759/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/08/2025
undefined
Sessions Judge, Bhavnagar in Special Atro. Case No.
17/2006 on 30.12.2010, 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
