[Cites 15, Cited by 0]
Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Suthar Ishwarlal Ramnath on 1 December, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1388/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/12/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1388 of 2009
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SANJEEV J.THAKER Sd/-
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
SUTHAR ISHWARLAL RAMNATH & 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 This appeal filed by the appellant-State under Section 378(1)(3)
of the Criminal procedure Code, 1973 (Code), assails the judgment
and order dated 05.05.2009, passed by the Additional Sessions
Judge, 4th FTC Case No.70 of 2008, acquitting the respondents -
original accused for the offence punishable under Sections 323, 504,
506(2) and 114 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and Sections
135 of the Bombay Police Act, and Sections 3(1)(x) of the Atrocity
Act .
2.1. The brief facts of the prosecution case are that the complainant-
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1388/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/12/2025
undefined
Bhogilal Manabhai Parmar, residing at: Nanivada lodged complaint
before Kheralu Police Station being II-CR-NO.57 of 2008, against
present accused persons for the offences punishable under Sections
323, 504, 506(2) and 114 of Indian Penal Code and Section 135 of
Bombay Police Act and Section 3(1)(10) of Atrocity Act. It is the
case of the prosecution that on 21.07.2008, at about 17.00 hours, at
Village: Chotiya, when complainant was ploughing his farm by
tractor and at that time accused persons came there, abused
complainant, uttered words against his caste, slapped on his face,
threatened him to kill and by holding weapons like stick-pedal in
public, breached the proclamation of prohibiting of weapons issued
by the Additional District Magistrate with the help of each other.
2.2. On the basis of the said complaint, investigation was initiated
and after thorough investigation, charge-sheet was filed before the
Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kheralu. As the offences committed
by the accused persons were exclusively triable by the Court of
Sessions as per the provisions of 209 of Criminal Procedure Code,
the Judge was pleased to commit the case to the Court of Sessions
and the case was transferred and placed for trial before the
Additional Sessions Judge (4th Fast Track Judge), Camp at Visnagar,
Mehsana, which has been numbered as Special (Atro) case no.70 of
2008. Thereafter, charge was framed against them for the offence
punishable under Sections 323, 504, 506(2) and 114 of Indian Penal
Code & Section 135 of Bombay Police Act and Section 3(1)(10) of
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1388/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/12/2025
undefined
Atrocity Act. The accused persons pleaded not guilty to the charges
and claimed to be tried at Visnagar, Mehsana, in Special (Atro) Case
No.70 of 2008, acquitting the accused respondents from the charges
of offences against them as mentioned above.
2.3 The trial was initiated against the respondents and during course
of trial the prosecution examined 8 witnesses and produced 7
documentary evidences. At the end of trial, after recording the
statement of the accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., and hearing
arguments on behalf of prosecution and the defence, the learned
Sessions Judge acquitted the respondents of all the charges leveled
against them by judgment and order dated 05.05.2009.
2.4 Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment
and order passed by the Sessions Court the appellant State has
preferred the present appeal.
3. It was contended by learned APP that the judgment and order
of the Sessions Court is against the provisions of law; the Sessions
Court has not properly prosecution considered and looking the to
evidence the led by the provisions of law itself it is established that
the prosecution has proved the whole ingredients of the evidence
against the present respondents . Learned APP has also taken this
Court through the oral as well as the entire documentary evidence.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1388/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/12/2025
undefined
4. Learned APP for the appellant-State has pointed out the facts of
the case and having taken this Court through both, oral and
documentary evidence, recorded before the learned trial Court,
would submit that the learned trial Court has failed to appreciate the
evidence in true sense and perspective; and that the trial Court has
committed error in acquitting the accused. It is submitted that the
learned trial Court ought not to have given much emphasis to the
contradictions and/or omissions appearing in the evidence and ought
to have given weightage to the dots that connect the accused with the
offence in question. It is submitted that the learned trial Court has
erroneously come to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to
prove its case. It is also submitted that the learned Judge ought to
have seen that the evidence produced on record is reliable and
believable and it was proved beyond reasonable doubt that the
accused had committed an offence in question. It is, therefore,
submitted that this Court may allow this appeal by appreciating the
evidence led before the learned trial Court.
5. Having heard learned APP for the appellant State, having gone
through the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the trial Court
as well as material placed on record, certain aspects which weigh
with this Court needs to be discussed.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1388/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/12/2025
undefined
5.1 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.
5.2 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 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.
5.3 Merely because two views are possible, the Court of appeal
would not take the view which would upset the judgment delivered
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1388/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/12/2025
undefined
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.
5.4 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 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
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1388/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/12/2025
undefined
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)
5.5 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".
5.6 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)
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1388/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/12/2025
undefined
"(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 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
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1388/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/12/2025
undefined
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."
5.7 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.
5.8 These decisions clearly express that while exercising appellate
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.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1388/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/12/2025
undefined
6. In the aforesaid background, considering the oral as well
as documentary evidence on record, and considering the
impugned judgment and order of the Trial Court, the following
aspects weighed with the Court:
(i) The P.W. vide Exhibit-16, the complainant Bhogilal
Manabhai has stated that he was not knowing the accused and
that he has never been to the said village, therefore the there are
discrepancies in his evidence as to who had given the name of
the accused. The Trial Court has also come to the conclusion
that there were civil litigations pending between the interested
witnesses and the accused.
(ii) Moreover, in the complaint it has been stated that he was
assaulted, but there are no medical documents to support the
same. There are contradictions in the complaint and the
deposition, of the complainant. There are different facts of the
incident that took place as narrated in the complaint and the
deposition. The Trial Court has also observed that no one was
present at the time of the incident.
(iii) The panch i.e. Jesangbhai Ambarji Thakore, Batsangji
Ramjibhai Thakore who had been examined vide Exhibits 18
and 20 have also not supported the case of the prosecution.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1388/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/12/2025
undefined
(iv) The witnesses Mangaji Amaji who has been examined vide
Exhibit 21 has stated that in his presence, the accused had
abused the complainant of his caste and had threatened the
complainant of his life and the complainant in his examination
has stated that other than the complainant and accused, nobody
was present and therefore the Trial Court has rightly not
believed the evidence of witness Exhibit-21-Mangaji Amaji.
(v) Moreover, the Trial Court has also observed that as there
were civil litigations with respect to the property between the
accused and the interested witnesses, the interested witnesses
have supported the complainant.
(vi) The Trial Court has also come to the conclusion that there
are allegations of physical assault, there is no medical evidence
that has been proved by the prosecution of the said offence.
(vii) Moreover, the Trial Court has also taken into consideration
that vide Exhibit -16, the complainant has given the Tractor
No.GJ-RL-1095 and vide Exhibit-17 in the complaint, the
tractor number that has been given by the complainant is GJ-
RL-6725 and even in the cross-examination when the said
question was put forward to the complainant, the complainant
has stated that the numbers that has been mentioned in the
examination-in-chief was correct. Therefore, the Trial Court has
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1388/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/12/2025
undefined
held that there are contradictions in the statement and evidence
of the complainant.
(viii) Moreover, the Trial Court has also held that there are lot
of contradiction in the oral evidence of the complainant at
Exhibit-16 with the date and the persons who were present in
the alleged incident that took place on 21.07.2008.
(ix) The panch report is produced vide Exhibit-11 and the panch
witness Hussainmiya Lalumiya Sindhi who has been examined
vide Exhibit 10 and the other panch witness Chanaji Ganeshji
Thakore who has been examined vide Exhibit-12, have not
supported the case of the prosecution.
(x) The panch witnesses of place of the offence has been
examined vide Exhibits 18 and 20 and they have also not
supported the case of the prosecution. Vide Exhibit-22, the
Police Officer has been examined as P.W.-57 and from the said
evidence, and on perusal of the deposition of the witnesses of
the prosecution, the prosecution has not proved its case.
(xi) The Trial Court while considering the evidences in detail
has observed that the prosecution has failed to prove the case
against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. 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.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1388/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/12/2025
undefined
(xii) Thus, from the evidence itself it is established that the
prosecution has not proved its case beyond reasonable doubt.
Learned APP is not in a position to show any evidence to take a
contrary view of the matter or that the approach of the trial
court is vitiated by some manifest illegality or that the decision
is perverse or that the trial court has ignored the material
evidence on record.
(xiii) Therefore, the prosecution has not proved the case against the
accused for the offence punishable under Section 323, 504, 506(2)
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.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1388/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/12/2025
undefined
(xiv) The trial Court while considering the evidences in detail
has observed that the prosecution has failed to prove the case
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.
6. In the above view of the matter, I am of the considered
opinion that the Trial Court was completely justified in
acquitting the respondents of the charges leveled against them.
6.1 I find that the findings recorded by the trial court are
absolutely just and proper and in recording the said findings, no
illegality or infirmity has been committed by it.
6.2 I am, therefore, in complete agreement with the findings,
ultimate conclusion and the resultant order of acquittal recorded
by the Court below and hence find no reasons to interfere with
the same. Hence the appeal is hereby dismissed.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1388/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/12/2025
undefined
7. The judgment and order dated dated 05.05.2009, passed by
the Additional Sessions Judge, 4th FTC Case No.70 of 2008,
acquitting the respondents - original accused is hereby
confirmed. Bail bonds, if any, shall stand cancelled. R & P to be
sent back forthwith.
Sd/-
(SANJEEV J.THAKER,J)
URIL RANA
