[Cites 10, Cited by 0]
Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Popatbhai Dhudabhai on 1 December, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1613/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/12/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1613 of 2012
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SANJEEV J.THAKER Sd/-
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
✔
==========================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
POPATBHAI DHUDABHAI & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS SHRUTI PATHAK, APP for the Appellant(s) No. 1
RULE SERVED for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SANJEEV J.THAKER
Date : 01/12/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Feeling aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment and
order of acquittal dated 28.5.2012 passed by the learned 2ND Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Bhavnagar, in Criminal Case No.4259 of 2002
for the offences punishable under Sections 337 and 504 of the Indian
Penal Code, the appellant - State of Gujarat has preferred this appeal
under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for
short, "the Code").
2. The prosecution case as unfolded during the trial before the
lower Court is that the complainant was serving as Principal at
Mukta Laxmi Mahila Vidhyalala; that on 30.5.2002, when she was
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1613/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/12/2025
undefined
present in her office, at that time, the present respondent came into
the office of the complainant, told that his G.P.loan papers are with
her and intentionally, she has kept the same with her. When the
complainant gave reply to the same, the respondent-original accused
got excited and gave filthy abuses to the complainant and caused
injury on her hand. The other persons present there came there and
rescued the complainant. Therefore, the complaint was lodged
against the respondent-accused.
3. After investigation, sufficient prima facie evidence was found
against the accused person/s and therefore charge-sheet was filed in
the competent criminal Court. The charge was framed against the
accused person/s. The accused pleaded not guilty and came to be
tried.
4. In order to bring home the charge, the prosecution has
examined the witnesses and also produced various documentary
evidence before the trial Court, which are described in the impugned
judgment.
5. After hearing both the parties and after analysis of evidence
adduced by the prosecution, the learned trial Judge acquitted the
accused for the offences for which they were charged, by holding
that the prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond reasonable
doubt.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1613/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/12/2025
undefined
6. 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.
7. None appears on behalf of the respondents.
8. I have heard the submissions made by the learned advocates
for the respective parties and also gone through the oral and
documentary evidence, independently and dispassionately.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1613/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/12/2025
undefined
(i) The prosecution has examined P.W.1-Bhatt Vasantiben vide
exhibit-10, who is the complainant and in her deposition, she
has stated that the accused had abused her of her caste and had
injured her on her hand by throwing the table-fan on her and she
was injured on her right hand and at the time of the said fight,
the Head Clerk Hareshbhai Bhatt and Arjanbhai Chauhan and
the peon Mudubhai Dhanabhai had rushed to the office of the
complainant and had saved her. The said complainant has also
stated that, the accused had also rushed towards the complainant
to assault her. If the complaint of the complainant, which is
produced vide Exhibit-11 is taken into consideration, in the said
complaint also, the said complainant has not stated that, there
are lot of contradictions in the deposition of the Complainant
and the witnesses examined by the prosecution vide Exhibit-12.
(ii) The Prosecution witness-12-Hareshbhai Bhatt in his
deposition had stated that at the time of the incident, he was
present in the office of the complainant and had seen the said
offence committed by the accused as he was present in the
Office of the complainant.
(iii) The complainant herself in her complaint has stated that, at
the time when she was assaulted and abused of her caste,
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1613/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/12/2025
undefined
Hareshbhai Bhatt and Arjun Bhai Chauhan, an officer of Gujarat
Maritime Board had rushed From outside and had saved the
complainant From the assault of the accused. Therefore, there
are lot of contradictions and discrepancies in the testimony and
the prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond doubt.
Moreover, the prosecution has also not taken in their custody the
fan which was hit by the accused.
9. Further, learned APP is not in a position to show any
evidence to take a contrary view in the matter or that the approach of
the Court below is vitiated by some manifest illegality or that the
decision is perverse or that the Court below has ignored the material
evidence on record. In above view of the matter, we are of the
considered opinion that the Court below was completely justified in
passing impugned judgment and order.
10. Considering the impugned judgment, the trial Court has
recorded that there was no direct evidence connecting the accused
with the incident and there are contradictions in the depositions of
the prosecution witnesses. In absence of the direct evidence, it
cannot be proved that the accused are involved in the offence.
Further, the motive of the accused behind the incident is not
established. The trial Court has rightly considered all the evidence
on record and passed the impugned judgment. The trial Court has
rightly evaluated the facts and the evidence on record.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1613/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/12/2025
undefined
11. It is also a settled legal position that in acquittal appeal,
the appellate court is not required to re-write the judgment or to give
fresh reasoning, when the reasons assigned by the Court below are
found to be just and proper. Such principle is down by the Apex
Court in the case of State of Karnataka Vs. Hemareddy, reported
in AIR 1981 SC 1417 wherein it is held as under:
"... This court has observed in Girija Nandini Devi
V. Bigendra Nandini Chaudhary (1967)1 SCR 93:
(AIR 1967 SC 1124) that it is not the duty of the
appellate court when it agrees with the view of the
trial court on the evidence to repeat the narration of
the evidence or to reiterate the reasons given by the
trial court expression of general agreement with the
reasons given by the Court the decision of which is
under appeal, will ordinarily suffice."
12. Thus, in case the appellate court agrees with the reasons
and the opinion given by the lower court, then the discussion of
evidence at length is not necessary.
13. In the case of Ram Kumar v. State of Haryana, reported
in AIR 1995 SC 280, Supreme Court has held as under:
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1613/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/12/2025
undefined
"The powers of the High Court in an appeal from
order of acquittal to reassess the evidence and reach
its own conclusions under Sections 378 and 379,
Cr.P.C. are as extensive as in any appeal against the
order of conviction. But as a rule of prudence, it is
desirable that the High Court should give proper
weight and consideration to the view of the Trial
Court with regard to the credibility of the witness, the
presumption of innocence in favour of the accused,
the right of the accused to the benefit of any doubt
and the slowness of appellate Court in justifying a
finding of fact arrived at by a Judge who had the
advantage of seeing the witness. It is settled law that
if the main grounds on which the lower Court has
based its order acquitting the accused are reasonable
and plausible, and the same cannot entirely and
effectively be dislodged or demolished, the High
Court should not disturb the order of acquittal."
14. As observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case
of Rajesh Singh & Others vs. State of Uttar Pradesh reported in
(2011) 11 SCC 444 and in the case of Bhaiyamiyan Alias Jardar
Khan and Another vs. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in (2011)
6 SCC 394, while dealing with the judgment of acquittal, unless
reasoning by the trial Court is found to be perverse, the acquittal
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1613/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/12/2025
undefined
cannot be upset. It is further observed that High Court's interference
in such appeal in somewhat circumscribed and if the view taken by
the trial Court is possible on the evidence, the High Court should
stay its hands and not interfere in the matter in the belief that if it had
been the trial Court, it might have taken a different view.
15. In the case of Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka,
reported in (2007) 4 SCC 415, the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed
as under:
"42. From the above decisions, in our considered
view, the following general principles regarding
powers of the 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 Criminal Procedure Code, 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
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1613/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/12/2025
undefined
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."
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1613/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/12/2025
undefined
16. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the
case and law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court while
considering the scope of appeal under Section 378 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 no case is made out to interfere with the
impugned judgment and order of acquittal.
17. In view of above facts and circumstances of the case, on
our careful re-appreciation of the entire evidence, I found that there
is no infirmity or irregularity in the findings of fact recorded by
learned trial Court and under the circumstances, the learned trial
Court has rightly acquitted the respondents - accused for the
elaborate reasons stated in the impugned judgment and I also
endorse the view/finding of the learned trial Court leading to the
acquittal.
18. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above,
the present Criminal Appeal fails to prove its case and the same
deserves to be dismissed and is dismissed, accordingly. Record &
Proceedings be remitted to the concerned trial Court forthwith.
Sd/-
(SANJEEV J.THAKER,J)
URIL RANA
