Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Dineshbhai Vitthalbhai Chauhan on 13 August, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1380/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/08/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1380 of 2011
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE S.V. PINTO Sd/-
================================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
√
================================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
DINESHBHAI VITTHALBHAI CHAUHAN
================================================================
Appearance:
MS.C.M.SHAH, APP for the Appellant(s) No. 1
BAILABLE WARRANT UNSERVED for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1
RULE SERVED for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1
================================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE S.V. PINTO
Date : 13/08/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant - State
under Section 378(1)(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
(hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') against the judgment and the
order passed by the learned 5th Additional District Judge,
Bhavnagar (hereinafter referred to as 'the learned Appellate Court')
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1380/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/08/2025
undefined
in Criminal Appeal No. 27 of 2010 on 08.08.2011 qua the original
accused no.2 - Dineshbhai Viththalbhai Chauhan, whereby, the
learned Appellate Court has quashed and set aside the judgment
and order passed by the learned 4th Additional Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Bhavnagar, (hereinafter referred to as 'the learned Trial
Court), in Criminal Case No. 6527 of 2009 on 16.08.2010,
whereby, the learned Trial Court convicted and sentenced both the
original accused to simple imprisonment of 1 year and fine of
Rs.5,000/-, and in default, simple imprisonment of 3 months for
the offence punishable under Section 356 of the Indian Penal
Code and rigorous imprisonment of 2 years and fine of Rs.5,000/-,
and in default, simple imprisonment of 3 months for the offence
punishable under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code
(hereinafter referred to as 'the IPC'). The learned Trial Court was
pleased to further order both the sentences to run concurrently.
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.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1380/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/08/2025
undefined
2. The relevant facts leading to filing of the present
appeal are as under:
2.1. On 05.02.2009, at around 16:30 hours, the
complainant, Falguniben Ketanbhai Shah, was walking at Gita
Chowk, near Krishnanagar, Derasar, and at that time, both the
accused came on a motorcycle and the pillion rider snatched the
gold chain from the neck of the complainant and fled away. The
gold chain weighed about 2 tolas and was worth Rs. 10,000, and
the complainant filed the complaint under Sections 356, 379, 114
of the IPC at the Bhavnagar 'B' Division Police Station, which
came to be registered at Bhavnagar 'B' Division Police Station, I-
C.R.No.45 of 2009.
2.2. After registration of the FIR, the investigation was
carried out by the concerned Investigating Officer and after having
sufficient material against the accused, the charge sheet came to be
filed against the accused before the Court of Judicial Magistrate,
Bhavnagar.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1380/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/08/2025
undefined
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 was framed by the learned Trial Court at Exh.5 and the
statement of the accused was recorded at Exhs.6 and 7
respectively, wherein, the accused denied all the contents of the
charge and the entire evidence of the prosecution was taken on
record. The prosecution examined 11 witnesses and produced 05
documentary evidences in support of the case.
2.4. After the closing pursis was submitted by the learned
APP, the further statement of the accused under Section 313 of
the Code was recorded wherein the accused denied the evidence
on record. After hearing the arguments of the learned APP and
learned advocate for the accused and after perusing the documents
on record, the learned Trial Court, by the impugned judgment and
order dated 16.08.2010, was pleased to convict both the accused
for the offence under Sections 356 and 379 of the IPC and
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1380/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/08/2025
undefined
sentence them as mentioned above.
2.5. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned
judgment and order passed by the learned Trial Court, the accused
no. 2 - Dineshbhai Viththalbhai Chauhan preferred Criminal
Appeal No.27 of 2010 before the learned Sessions Court,
Bhavnagar, whereby, the appeal preferred by the accused no. 2
came to be allowed and the learned Appellate Court quashed and
set aside the judgment and order dated 16.08.2010 in Criminal
Case No. 6527 of 2009 passed by the learned Trial Court and
acquitted the accused no. 2 from the offence with which he was
convicted.
3. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned
judgment and order passed by the learned Appellate Court, the
appellant - State has filed the present appeal mainly stating that
the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Appellate
Court is illegal, arbitrary and without properly appreciating the
facts of the case and the materials available on record. The learned
Appellate Court has erred in appreciating the evidence and without
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1380/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/08/2025
undefined
there being cogent and substantial reasons, acquitted the accused
no.2. The learned Appellate Court has erred in appreciating the
oral as well as the documentary evidences produced by the
prosecution in its true spirit and straightway arrived at the
conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove the case
beyond reasonable doubts. That the judgment and order passed by
the learned Trial Court is just, legal and proper and it did not
require interference of the the Appellate Court, and therefore, the
order of acquittal passed by the learned Appellate Court requires
to be quashed and set aside.
4. Heard learned APP Ms.C.M.Shah for the appellant -
State. Though served, the respondent has not appeared either in
person or through an advocate. Perused the impugned judgment
and order of acquittal passed by the Appellate Court as well as
judgment and order of conviction passed by the learned Trial
Court and have re-appreciated the entire evidence of the
prosecution on record of the case.
5. Learned APP Ms.C.M.Shah for the appellant - State
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1380/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/08/2025
undefined
has taken this Court through the entire evidence produced by the
prosecution and has vehemently argued that the learned Appellate
Court has not appreciated the evidence properly and the
prosecution has produced cogent evidence to prove the case and
has successfully proved the case against the accused but the
Appellate Court has not considered the same and has acquitted the
accused. The judgment and order of acquittal passed by the
learned Appellate Court is contrary to law, evidence on record and
principles of justice. The judgment and order of acquittal passed
by learned Appellate Court is based on inferences, not warranted
by facts of the case and also on presumption, not permitted by
law. Learned APP has urged this Court to quash and set aside the
impugned judgment and order of acquittal and to find the accused
guilty for the said offence. Learned APP has urged this Court to
allow the present appeal and impose maximum sentence on the
accused.
6. It is a settled principle of law that in an appeal against
acquittal, the Appellate Court is circumscribed by limitation that
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1380/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/08/2025
undefined
no interference has to be made in the order of acquittal unless
after appreciation of the evidence produced before the learned
Trial Court, it appears that there are some manifest illegality or
perversity which could not have been possibly arrived at by the
Court. It is also a settled principle that there is no embargo on the
Appellate Court to review the evidence but, generally the order of
acquittal shall not be interfered with as the presumption of
innocence of the accused is further strengthened by the order of
acquittal. The golden thread which runs through the web of
administration of justice in criminal cases is that if two views are
possible on the evidence adduced in the case of the prosecution
i.e. (i) guilt of the accused and (ii) his innocence, the view, which is
in favour of the accused, should be adopted, and if the trial Court
has taken the view in favour of the accused, the Appellate Court
should not disturb the findings of the acquittal. The Appellate
Court can interfere with the judgment and order of acquittal only
when there are compelling and substantial reasons and the order is
clearly unreasonable and where the Appellate Court comes to
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1380/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/08/2025
undefined
conclusion that based on the evidence, the conviction is a must.
7. As per the settled principles of law in acquittal
appeals, the evidence of the prosecution on record is re-
appreciated and PW-1 Falguniben Ketanbhai Shah, examined at
Exh.8, is the complainant, who has narrated the facts as stated in
her complaint produced at Exh.9. As per the complaint, the
witness has stated that she and her friend Paritaben were walking
from Gita Chowk to Krishnanagar Derasar, and near Suparna
flats, the accused came the opposition direction on a motorcycle
and the pillion rider snatched her gold chain and they fled away.
The complaint has been filed at Exh.9, and during the cross-
examination by the learned advocate for the accused, the witness
has stated that after filing of the complaint, when the thief was
arrested, the police called her to the police station, and there was
one person at the police station, and the police had asked her
whether he was the person, who had snatched the chain. She had
some doubts but she identified him as the person, who had
snatched the chain. During the cross-examination by the learned
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1380/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/08/2025
undefined
advocate for the accused, the witness has stated that she had
informed her family members about the incident, and at the time
of the incident, a number of people had gathered there. Her
husband had asked her to file the complaint, and she had gone
along with her husband to file the complaint. The police had
inquired from her husband about the incident, and after the
complaint was written down, she had affixed her signature. When
she had gone for the second time to the police station, there were
other ladies whose chains had been snatched, and the police had
asked her whether the person, who was in the police station, was
the person, who snatched the chain and she had identified him.
The witness has admitted that the incident had taken place on a
public road, which was 80 to 100 ft. wide, adjourned to the road,
construction of a house was going on and there were many
labourers at that place. At the place of incident, there are
residences and flats on both sides of the road and it is a congested
area.
7.1 PW-2, Shantilal Babulal Bhanbaniya,, examined at
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1380/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/08/2025
undefined
Exh.13 and PW-3, Narandas Lakhumal, examined at Exh.15, are
the panch witnesses of the panchnama of the place of offence,
which is produced at Exh.14. Both the witnesses have not
supported the case of the prosecution and have been declared
hostile and cross-examined at length by the learned APP.
7.2. PW-4, Jayantibhai Lakshmanbhai Bariya, examined at
Exh.16, and PW-5, Ghanshyambhai Keshubhai Rathod, examined
at Exh.20, are the panch witnesses of the point-out panchnama,
produced at Exh.17. Both the witnesses have not supported the
case of the prosecution and have been declared hostile and cross-
examined at length by the learned APP, but nothing to support the
case of the prosecution has come on record.
7.3. PW-6, Mohammad Rizwan Liyaqathhan, examined at
Exh.21, has stated that he was working at a J.K.Jewellers on
Thavar Road and the police had asked him to affix his signature
on the panchnama, which is produced at Exh.22. The witness has
not supported the case of the prosecution and has been declared
hostile and has been cross-examined at length by the learned APP,
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1380/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/08/2025
undefined
but nothing to support the case of the prosecution has come on
record.
7.4. PW-8, Mustakimbhai Mohammad Salim Sheikh,
examined at Exh.24, has stated that he was working at a jewellers
shop, and the Bhavnagar 'B' Division Police personnel had come
to their shop and asked him his name and had taken his signature.
The police have not recovered anything from the shop, and he
could not identify any persons brought to his shop. The witness
has not supported the case of the prosecution and has been
declared hostile, and has been cross-examined at length by the
learned APP, but nothing to support the case of the prosecution
has come on record.
7.5. PW-9, Joghani Abhay Rameshbhai, examined at
Exh.25, was working as an engineer near Krishnagar Jain Upashray
and he has stated that between 3:00p.m. to 4:00p.m., he heard a lot
of shouting and when he went outside, he saw many persons had
gathered there, and there was one lady, who had stated that one
person on the motorcycle had snatched her chain but he does not
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1380/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/08/2025
undefined
know the name of the person. The witness has not supported the
case of the prosecution, and has been declared hostile.
7.6. PW-10, P.S.I. M.K.Makwana, examined at Exh.28, was
working at the Bhavnagar 'B' Division Police Station and is the
Investigating Officer who had drawn up the panchnama of the
place of offence, and had thereafter handed over the investigation
to P.S.I. S.M.Sagar.
7.7. PW-11, R.P.Jhala, examined at Exh.30, 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 no
gold chain was recovered from the possession of the accused nos.
1 or 2 and he could not identify the muddamal and he did not
seize the motorcycle that was used in the offence during
investigation.
8. On minute appreciation of the entire evidence of the
prosecution, the complainant, Falguniben Ketanbhai Shah, has
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1380/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/08/2025
undefined
filed the complaint, which is produced at Exh.9, but she has not
stated the number of the motorcycle or the description of the
persons that had snatched her gold chain. Moreover, the witness
has not produced any bills for the chain, and has not described the
chain that was snatched and there is no iota of evidence about any
gold chain on record. As per the say of the complainant, she and
her friend Paritaben were walking home, but the said Paritaben has
not been examined as a witness before the learned Trial Court.
Moreover, the complainant has not narrated the colour of the
clothes that the accused were wearing, not has given any
description about the accused, even though, she has stated that
they were coming from the opposite direction and she would have
seen the clothes that they were wearing or the number of the
motorcycle, but no such details have come on record. The point
out panchnama produced at Exh.17 is a panchnama, which has
been drawn for the offences registered at I-C.R.No.216 of 2009, I-
C.R.No. 45 of 2009 and I-C.R.No.146 of 2009. It appears that
there were three offences registered at the Bhavnagar 'B' Division
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1380/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/08/2025
undefined
Police Station, and once the accused were arrested, the point out
panchnama for the three offences were drawn in the same
panchnama. The panch witnesses have not supported the case of
the prosecution and neither has the Investigating Officer narrated
any details about the point out panchnama, which is produced at
Exh.17. As per the case of the prosecution, the muddamal gold
pieces were recovered from PW-8, Mustakimbhai Mohammed
Salim Sheikh, who was working at the jeweller's shop of
Mohammed Habib and Brothers, but the witness has not
supported the case of the prosecution and has been declared
hostile, and no evidence that the maddamal was recovered by the
Investigating Officer has come on record. If the panchnama
produced at Exh.22, which is the panchnama, by which, the
muddamal was recovered is perused, it appears that the recovery is
shown for the offence registered at Bhavnagar 'B' Division Police
Station, I-C.R.No.45 of 2009, wherein, a piece of gold of 20.200
grams of 20 carat, worth Rs.25,500/-, for the offence registered at
Bhavnagar 'B' Division Police Station, I-C.R.No.146 of 2009, a
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1380/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/08/2025
undefined
piece of gold weighing 7.110 grams of 20 carats, worth Rs.8,000/-
and for the offence registered at Bhavnagar 'B' Division Police
Station, I-C.R.No. 216 of 2009, a piece of gold weighing 20.200
grams of 20 carats, worth Rs. 25,500/- was seized. It is on record
that no gold chains were seized and the muddamal has been
recovered in three cases, but there is no iota of evidence that the
muddamal that was recovered belonged to the complainant of this
case. There is no iota of evidence on record that on the date of the
incident, the complainant was, in fact, wearing a gold chain, which
weighed about 2 tolas and the entire evidence has been appreciated
in a just and proper manner by the learned Appellate Court.
9. In view of the above, the learned Appellate 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 Appellate Court has
appreciated all the evidence and this Court is of the considered
opinion that the learned Appellate Court was completely justified
in acquitting the accused of the charges leveled against them. The
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1380/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/08/2025
undefined
findings recorded by the learned Appellate Court are absolutely
just and proper and no illegality or infirmity has been committed
by the learned Appellate Court and this Court is in complete
agreement with the findings, ultimate conclusion and the resultant
order of acquittal recorded by the learned Appellate Court. This
Court finds no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment
and order passed by the learned Appellate Court and the present
appeal is devoid of merits and resultantly, the same is dismissed.
10. The impugned judgment and the order passed by the
learned 5th Additional District Judge, Bhavnagar in Criminal
Appeal No.27 of 2010 on 08.08.2011 is hereby confirmed.
11. Bail bond stands cancelled. Record and proceedings be
sent back to the learned Appellate Court forthwith.
Sd/-
(S. V. PINTO,J)
F.S.KAZI.....
