[Cites 14, Cited by 0]

Gujarat High Court

State Of Gujarat vs Ravjibhai Bhaylalbhai Vasava on 10 December, 2025

                                                                                                                        NEUTRAL CITATION




                             R/CR.A/916/2010                                           JUDGMENT DATED: 10/12/2025

                                                                                                                         undefined




                                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                                                R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 916 of 2010


                       FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:


                       HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SANJEEV J.THAKER
                       ==========================================================

                                    Approved for Reporting                            Yes            No

                       ==========================================================
                                                        STATE OF GUJARAT
                                                              Versus
                                               RAVJIBHAI BHAYLALBHAI VASAVA & ORS.
                       ==========================================================
                       Appearance:
                       MR YUVRAJ BRAHMBHATT, APP for the Appellant - State
                       ABATED for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1
                       BAILABLE WARRANT SERVED for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 2,3
                       MR. JAY G THAKER(9944) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 2,3
                       ==========================================================

                          CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SANJEEV J.THAKER

                                                            Date : 10/12/2025

                                                          ORAL JUDGMENT

1. Feeling aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the

judgment and order of acquittal dated 15.03.2010 passed by

the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court

No.6, Vadodara, in Sessions Case No.158 of 2007 for the

offences punishable under Sections 323, 324, 452, 427 and

114 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 135 of the Bombay

Police Act, the appellant - State of Gujarat has preferred

this appeal under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure, 1973 (for short, "the Code").

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/916/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/12/2025

undefined

2. The prosecution case as unfolded during the trial

before the lower Court is that on 29.07.2006 at about 11:00

hours, at Sarving village, the accused persons with the help

of each other, illegally entered into he complainant's house

and the accused persons damaged the house of the

complainant and accused No.1 inflicted iron pipe blow on the

head of the complainant, accused No.2 inflicted pipe blow on

the leg of the complainant and accused No.3 by giving fists

blow tot he complainant and thereby, committed an offence

as alleged. Therefore, the complaint was lodged against the

respondent/s-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

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/916/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/12/2025

undefined

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.

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.

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/916/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/12/2025

undefined

7. As against that, learned advocate for the

respondent/s would support the impugned judgment passed by

the learned trial Court and has submitted that the learned

trial Court has not committed any error in acquitting the

accused. The trial Court has taken possible view as the

prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable

doubt. Therefore, it is prayed to dismiss the present appeal

by confirming the impugned judgment and order passed by

the learned trial Court.

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.

8.1 From the facts, it has come on record that

according to the complainant, the first incident happened at

the school premises, but, no complaint has been filed with

respect to the alleged offence. The panch witnesses, who have

been examined by the prosecution vide Exh.32, 35 and 36,

viz., Udesinh Babarbhai Patanvadia (P.W.5), Shaileshbhai

Somabhai (P.W.6) and Kantibhai Girdharbhai (P.W.7) have

not supported the case of the prosecution.

8.2 The complainant - Mahant Bhagwatiprasad

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/916/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/12/2025

undefined

Sitaram, in the complaint, states that after he went to his

residence, the said incident has happened.

P.W.8 - Dr.Ashish Vijaykumar Kothari who has

been examined vide Exh.38 has stated that the complainant

had informed him that Ravjibhai Bhailalbhai Vasava and his

accomplice have physically assaulted him, whereas, before the

doctor, the complainant does not give the names of sons of

Ravjibhai Bhailalbhai Vasava.

If the police vardhi, which is produced vide Exh.44

is seen, which is with respect to the vardhi from the

hospital, it only gives the name of one accused.

8.3 If the evidence of P.W.2 - Rakshaben

Bhagvatiprasad Mahant, vide Exh.28, is taken into

consideration, in her cross-examination, she does not state as to when the complainant got injured.

8.4 If the evidence of an independent witness viz.,

Ajitbhai Jayantibhai - P.W.3, who has been examined vide

Exh.29, is taken into consideration, he does not give any

details as to when the alleged incident had first taken place

in the school; and if the complainant was immediately taken

to the hospital, but the fact remains that the doctor, in his

deposition, has stated that the complainant had come for

treatment at 7:00 p.m.

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/916/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/12/2025

undefined

8.5 The prosecution has also examined P.W.4 - Ratilal

Ambalal Vasava vide Exh.20. From his deposition, he first

stated that he was at the school and later on, in his

deposition, he stated that he was at his residence and also

stated that he immediately took the complainant to the

hospital, which is contradicting the statement given by the

doctor, who states that the complainant had come for

treatment at 7:00 p.m. Moreover, according to the

complainant, the incident had happened at around 10:30 a.m.

to 11:00 a.m.

8.6 The panch of the panchanama of scene of offence -

Exh.33 has been examined vide Exh.32 as P.W.5 - Udesinh

Babarbhai Patanvadia. The panch - Kantibhai Girdharbhai (P.W.7) of the panchnama of muddamal produced vide Exh.37,

has been examined vide Exh.36, who has not supported the

case of the prosecution and has turned hostile.

8.7 Dr. Ashish Vijaykumar Kothari has been examined

as P.W.8, vide Exh.38. He has also stated that the

complainant has not informed him about the incident which

had taken place at the home and as to when the said

incident had happened.

The Investigating Officer - P.W.9 - Kanubhai

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/916/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/12/2025

undefined

Vichhiyabhai has been examined vide Exh.42 and the Police

Station Officer - Khumansinh Ramsinh Vasava - P.W.10 has

been examined vide Exh.48.

Thus, from the evidence on record, this Court

finds that the prosecution has not been able to prove its

case. The doctor, who has been examined vide Exh.38, has

also stated that the injury could also be imaginary. The

prosecution has not been able to prove the fact that after the

incident, the complainant was rushed to the hospital for his

treatment. From the doctor's evidence, the name of accused -

Ravjibhai Bhailalbhai Vasava and his accomplice have been

stated and the names of sons of accused No.1 - Ravjibhai

Bhaillabhai Vasava have not been given to the doctor.

8.7 Moreover, there are lot of contradictions and discrepancies in the evidence of the prosecution. The

prosecution has also not been able to prove that there is any

injury in the chest or on the head of the complainant.

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, I am of the considered opinion that the

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/916/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/12/2025

undefined

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.

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

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/916/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/12/2025

undefined

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:

"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

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/916/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/12/2025

undefined

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 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

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/916/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/12/2025

undefined

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 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

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/916/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/12/2025

undefined

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."

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 my 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

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/916/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/12/2025

undefined