[Cites 15, Cited by 0]
Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Sitaben W/O Prahladbhai Chauhan on 1 December, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2145/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/12/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2145 of 2010
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SANJEEV J.THAKER
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
No
==========================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
SITABEN W/O PRAHLADBHAI CHAUHAN & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR YUVRAJ BRAHMBHATT APP for the Appellant(s) No. 1
NOTICE SERVED for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 3
RULE SERVED for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1,2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SANJEEV J.THAKER
Date : 01/12/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1.1 This appeal has been filed by the appellant - State under Section
378(1)(3) of the Criminal procedure Code, 1973 (Code), assailing the
judgment and order dated 31.03.2016, passed by the Special Judge, City
Sessions Court, Ahmedabad, in Atrocity Criminal Case No.09 of 2009,
acquitting the respondents - original accused for the offence punishable
under Sections 324, 294(b) and 114 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860
('IPC', for short) and Section 3(i)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 ('the Atrocity Act',
for short).
1.2 On 12.12.2024 the Coordinate Bench of this Court had issued
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2145/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/12/2025
undefined
notice to original complainant i.e. Respondent No.3 which as per record is
served. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 are also served. However, none appeared
for any of the respondents.
2.1 Brief facts of the prosecution case are that on 03.02.2007, the
complainant Hirabhai Mohanbhai Solanki had filed the complaint before
the Naranpura Police Station, Ahmedabad, which is registered being I-
C.R.No.77 of 2007 stating therein that, after completing his work at
Torrent Power, AEC, Shahpur, he returned to his house at around 3:30
p.m. At around 3:45, his cousin sister Ramiben, left for labour work at
nearby house which is situated opposite to the house of the complainant,
for lifting the bricks. After some time, he heard noise of quarrel between
Sitaben Prahladbhai Chauhan (original accused No.1), resident of House
No.9/84, Chandrabhaga Society, and his cousin, who was hurling filthy
language to cousin of the complainant. The original accused No.1 also
slapped the cousin of the complainant Ramiben. At that time, husband of
Sitaben viz. Prahladbhai Chauhan ( original accused No.2) came there
and uttered some filthy language relating to caste of Ramiben. The
original accused no.2 Prahladbhai took wooden sheet being used for
lifting the bricks from the hand of Ramiben and gave blows on right side
of forehead of Ramiben which caused her to fall on the ground and she
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2145/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/12/2025
undefined
became unconscious. Thereafter, people gathered there and seeing the
people, both the accused ran away from the place of incident. The injured
Ramiben was taken to Kumud Hospital, Vijaynagar for treatment by
Muljibhai, cousin brother of the complainant. The complaint was filed by
the complainant stating that accused no.1 used derogatory words relating
to caste of the injured Ramiben, slapped her and accused no.2 gave blow
of wooden sheet and thereby caused injury to Ramiben. The incident of
quarrel occurred because while lifting the bricks by Ramiben, her hand
touched son of Prahladbhai (original accused No.2).
2.2 On the basis of the said complaint, investigation was carried out,
statements of witnesses were recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C.
Caste Certificate of the complainant was collected and the charge-sheet
was filed on 14.03.2007 for offences punishable under Sections 324,
294(b) and 114 of the 'IPC' and under Section 3(i) (x) of the 'the Atrocity
Act'.
2.3 Since the case was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, as
per Section 209 of the Cr.P.C., the case was committed to the Court of
Sessions. Thereafter, charge was framed against the accused persons.
The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed to be tried, trial
commenced.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2145/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/12/2025
undefined
2.4 To prove its case, the prosecution examined following witnesses
and and produced documentary evidence to corroborate the oral
testimonies.
ORAL EVIDENCE :
Sr Exh. Prosecution Name
No. Witness
Number
1 9 1 Ashwinbhai Shivabhai Prajapati
2 17 2 Hirabhai Mohanbhai Solanki
3 21 3 Rajubhai Manabhai Solanki
4 23 4 Ramiben Tokarbhai Vanker
5 26 5 Geetaben Sanjaybhai Chauhan
6 27 6 Bhupendra Dayashanker Shukla
7 29 7 Revaben Hirabhai Solanki
8 31 8 Mahendrasinh Kanuji Padiyar
9 32 9 Nanuji Dhulaji Parmar
10 34 10 Lavjibhai Kanabhai
DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE :
Sr Exh. Particulars
No.
1 10 Panchnama of scene of offence
2 18 Original complaint given by Hirabhai
3 19 Caste certificate of complainant
4 22 Panchnama of body position of accused
5 24 Caste Certificate of Witness Ramiben
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2145/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/12/2025
undefined
6 28 Certificate of doctor for treatment given to Ramiben
7 32 Report under Section 57
Further statement of the respondents accused were recorded under
Section 313 of the Cr.P.C by the trial Court wherein also the accused
denied their involvement in the offence.
2.5 On conclusion of the trial, the learned trial Judge acquitted the
accused persons. Being aggrieved by the same, the State has preferred
the present appeal.
3. Heard, learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr.Yuvraj
Brahmbhatt for the appellant - State.
4.1 Learned APP for the appellant - State has mainly contended that
order of acquittal is contrary to law and evidence on record and that the
trial Court ought to have seen that the prosecution has proved its case
beyond reasonable doubt by producing cogent and reliable evidence. It
has been argued by learned APP that prosecution had examined ten
witnesses and also produced seven documentary evidence in support of
the case of the prosecution. However, the trial Court has not properly
appreciated oral as well as documentary evidence, available on record, in
its true spirit and proper perspective.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2145/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/12/2025
undefined
4.2 It is further contended that trial Court has erred in holding that the
prosecution has failed to prove that on 03.02.2007 at about 15:45 hrs or
thereabout, Prosecution Witness No.4 viz.Ramiben was doing masonry
labour work, lifting the bricks from the road opposite to the house of
Mohanbhai Kasturbhai Chauhan. During that time, Ramiben had a plank
which touched Sitaben (accused No.1) on her forehead and she got angry
upon Ramiben and used filthy language and slapped Ramiben. Accused
No.2 Prahladbhai, who happens to be husband of Accused No.1, had
come there and he also used unparliamentary language and snatched
away plank and hit it on the right side of forehead of Ramiben.
4.3 Learned APP has further submitted that trial Court has failed to
appreciate that prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt.
The trial Court has also erred in not taking into consideration evidence of
Prosecution Witness No.2, who was examined at Exh.17 namely Hirabhai
Mohanbhai Solanki, an independent witness, who has fully supported the
case of the prosecution as narrated by him in FIR at Exh.18.
4.4 Learned APP has also argued that the trial Court has not properly
appreciated the evidence of the complainant and disbelieved his evidence
while coming into conclusion that prosecution has failed to prove beyond
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2145/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/12/2025
undefined
reasonable doubt that the accused persons have committed offences
charges against them.
4.5 Learned APP has also submitted that injured witness, Prosecution
Witness No.4 Ramiben Tokarbhai Vankar, who has been examined at
Exh.23, had fully supported the case of the prosecution as narrated in the
complaint and the trial Court has also failed to appreciate the evidence of
Prosecution Witness No.6 Dr.Bhupendra D. Shukla, who was examined
at Exh.27 who has produced medicate certificate of injured witness
Ramiben at Exh.28 wherein he has specifically stated that such injuries
are possible by giving blows.
4.6 It has been further submitted by learned APP that, trial Court has
failed to properly appreciate the evidence of Prosecution Witness No.1
Ashvinbhai Shivabhai Prajapati, who was examined at Exh.9, Prosecution
Witness No.3 Rajubhai Manabhai Solanki, who was examined at Exh.21,
injured Prosecution Witness No.4 Ramiben Tokarbhai Vankar who has
been examined at Exh.23, Prosecution Witness No.5 Geetaben
Sanjaybhai Chauhan who has been examined at Exh.26, Prosecution
Witness No.7 Revaben Hirabhai Solanki, who has been examined at
Exh.29, Prosecution Witness No.9 Nanuji Dhulaji Parmar examined at
Exh.32 and Prosecution Witness No.10 Lavjibhai Kanabhai who was
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2145/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/12/2025
undefined
examined at Exh.34 and, therefore, reasons assigned by learned trial
Court while appreciating the evidence as well as acquitting the accused
persons are improper, perverse and bad in law and, therefore, it has been
argued that the order of acquittal be quashed and set aside.
5. None appeared for the respondent accused.
6.1 Before adverting to the facts of the case, it would be worthwhile to
refer to the scope of interference in acquittal appeals. It is well settled by
catena of decisions that an appellate Court has full power to review, re-
appreciate and consider the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is
founded. However, the Appellate Court must bear in mind that in case of
acquittal, there is prejudice in favour of the accused, firstly, the
presumption of innocence is 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 reaffirmed and strengthened by the trial Court.
6.2 Further, 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. Further, while exercising the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2145/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/12/2025
undefined
powers in appeal against the order of acquittal, the Court of appeal would
not ordinarily interfere with the order of acquittal unless the approach of
the lower Court is vitiated by some manifest illegality and the conclusion
arrive at would not be arrived at by any reasonable person, and therefore,
the decision is to be characterized as perverse.
6.3 Merely because two views are possible, the Court of appeal would
not take the view which would upset the judgment delivered by the Court
below. However, the appellate Court has a power to review the evidence
if it is of the view that the conclusion arrived at by the Court below is
perverse and the court has committed a manifest error of law and ignored
the material evidence on record. That the duty is cast upon the appellate
Court, in such circumstances, to re-appreciate the evidence to arrive to
just decision on the basis of material placed on record to find out whether
the accused is connected with the commission of the crime with which he
is charged.
6.4 In the case of Babu v. State of Kerala, (2010) 9 SCC 189), this
Court had reiterated the principles to be followed in an appeal against
acquittal under Section 378 Cr.P.C., it is held as under:
12. This Court time and again has laid down the guidelines for
the High Court to interfere with the judgment and order of
acquittal passed by the trial court. The appellate court should not
ordinarily set aside a judgment of acquittal in a case where two
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2145/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/12/2025
undefined
views are possible, though the view of the appellate court may be
the more probable one. While dealing with a judgment of acquittal,
the appellate court has to consider the entire evidence on record,
so as to arrive at a finding as to whether the views of the trial court
were perverse or otherwise unsustainable. The appellate court is
entitled to consider whether in arriving at a finding of fact, the
trial court had failed to take into consideration admissible
evidence and/or had taken into consideration the evidence brought
on record contrary to law. Similarly, wrong placing of burden of
proof may also be a subject-matter of scrutiny by the appellate
court. (emphasis applied)
6.5 In Mallikarjun Kodagali (Dead) represented through Legal
Representatives v. State of Karnataka and Others, (2019) 2 SCC 752,
the Apex Court has observed that:
"The presumption of innocence which is attached to every accused
gets fortified and strengthened when the said accused is acquitted
by the trial Court. Probably, for this reason, the law makers felt
that when the appeal is to be filed in the High Court it should not
be filed as a matter of course or as matter of right but leave of the
High Court must be obtained before the appeal is entertained.
This would not only prevent the High Court from being flooded
with appeals but more importantly would ensure that innocent
persons who have already faced the tribulation of a long drawn out
criminal trial are not again unnecessarily dragged to the High
Court".
6.6 The Apex Court, in case of Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka
(2007) 4 SCC 415, reiterated the legal position as under: (SCC p. 432,
para 42)
"(1) An appellate court has full power to review, re-appreciate 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
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2145/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/12/2025
undefined
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 emphasise 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 is 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."
6.7 The Apex Court has held that the law on the issue can be
summarized to the effect that in exceptional cases where there are
compelling circumstances, and the judgment under appeal is found to be
perverse, the appellate court can interfere with the order of acquittal. The
appellate court should bear in mind the presumption of innocence of the
accused and further that the trial court's acquittal bolsters the
presumption of his innocence. Interference in a routine manner where the
other view is possible should be avoided, unless there are good reasons
for interference.
6.8 These decisions clearly express that while exercising appellate
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2145/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/12/2025
undefined
powers, even if two reasonable views/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.
7.1 In the aforesaid backdrop, considering the oral as well as the
documentary evidence on record vis-a-vis impugned judgment and order
of the trial Court, following aspects also weighed with by the Court:
i) from the perusal of deposition, more particularly, the cross-
examination of complainant PW-2 Hirabhai Mohanbhai
Solanki, Exh.17, the complainant, it has come on record that
he had come late from service and was not present at the time
of incident and, therefore, the trial Court has held that there
are material contradiction in the deposition of the
complainant as well as injured Prosecution Witness No.4
Ramiben Tokarbhai Vanker, Exh.23. Moreover, there were
other two women viz. Kashiben and Shantaben who were
present at the time of incident which took place on
03.02.2007, however, inspite of the fact that they were present
there, they have not been examined by the prosecution.
ii) Moreover, it has also come on record that complainant
Hirabhai had deposed that injured Ramiben, PW No.4,
Exh.23, was kept as indoor patient for one day. As against
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2145/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/12/2025
undefined
that Prosecution Witness No.4, Exh.23 injured Ramiben
herself and Prosecution Witness No.6, Exh.27 Dr.Bhupendra
Shukla have deposed that after 2-3 hours Ramiben was
discharged from the hospital.
iii) Moreover, number of persons were present at the time of
incident inspite of that, no independent witness has been
examined by the prosecution.
iv) Since the PW No.6, Dr.Bhupendra Shukla, Exh.27 has not
stated in his evidence that as the case was not medicolegal
case, neither he has taken history, nor informed the police
and, therefore, the evidence of this witness would not be
helpful to the case of the prosecution. This witness has also
deposed that, in his opinion, the injury sustained by Ramiben
could be possible if the person fells down.
v) There are no independent witnesses and the witnesses who
have been examined by the prosecution are related to the
injured person Ramiben. Looking to the deposition of the
Doctor and other witnesses, there are lots of contradictions
and discrepancies in the evidence of the prosecution.
vi) The panchas have also not supported the case of the
prosecution. The prosecution has failed to prove that the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2145/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/12/2025
undefined
accused have insulted or humiliated injured Ramiben in
public place though the witnesses examined by prosecution
are members of the same community.
vii) Therefore, the prosecution has not proved the case against the
accused for the offence punishable under Section 324, 294(b)
and 114 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 3(1)(x)
of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, 1989. Moreover, as per the observations made
by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sajan Sakhariya Vs.
State of Kerala and others reported in AIR 2024 SC 4557,
every insult or intimidation would not amount to an offence
under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled
Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, unless such insult
or intimidation is started at a victim because he is a member
of a particular Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes.
Therefore, from the allegations made in the complaint, the
prosecution has not proved that the accused is guilty of
offence under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
viii) The trial Court while considering the evidences in detail has
observed that the prosecution has failed to prove the case
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2145/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/12/2025
undefined
against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. While
discussing the evidence in detail, the trial court has found that
the only allegation against the accused is of speaking
indecent words against the caste of the complainant. However
from a perusal of records, it appears that the said utterance
does not constitute an offence under the provisions of the
Atrocity Act. The trial Court has gone into the evidence in
detail and has come to the conclusion that the accused are not
guilty of the alleged offence.
7.2 After re-appreciating the evidence, the view taken by the trial
Court was plausible view that has been taken based on the evidence on
record. The prosecution has not proved their case and the guilt of the
accused has not been proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt.
7.3 Thus, on overall re-appreciation and revaluation of the oral as well
as documentary evidence on record, as referred to herein above, it
transpires that there are contradictions and omissions in the evidence of
the prosecution witnesses. The learned trial Judge has observed that
prosecution has failed to bring home the charges levelled against the
accused inasmuch as the ingredients of the offence alleged are not
fulfilled.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2145/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/12/2025
undefined
8. This Court has gone through in detail the impugned judgment and
order and found that the learned trial Judge has meticulously considered
the depositions of all the witnesses and came to the conclusion that the
prosecution has failed to prove the case against the accused beyond
reasonable doubt and in the considered opinion of this Court, the learned
trial Judge has rightly come to such a conclusion, which does not call for
any interference at the hands of this Court.
9. In view of the aforesaid discussion and observations, in the
considered opinion of this Court, the prosecution has failed to bring home
the charge against accused for want of sufficient material. The findings
recorded by the learned trial Judge do not call for any interference.
Resultantly, the appeal fails and is dismissed accordingly. Impugned
judgment and order dated 31.03.2016 passed by the Special Judge, City
Sessions Court, Ahmedabad in Atrocity Criminal Case No. 09 of 2009 ,
recording the acquittal of the respondents - accused is confirmed.
10. Bail bond, if any, shall stand cancelled. R&P, if received, be
transmitted back forthwith to the trial Court concerned.
(SANJEEV J.THAKER,J)
MISHRA AMIT V.
