[Cites 16, Cited by 0]
Gujarat High Court
The State Of Gujarat vs Pravinbhai Bhimjibhai Aankoliya on 2 December, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/284/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/12/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 284 of 2008
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SANJEEV J.THAKER
================================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
No
================================================================
THE STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
PRAVINBHAI BHIMJIBHAI AANKOLIYA & ORS.
================================================================
Appearance:
MS SHRUTI PATHAK, APP for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR DHAVAL M BAROT(2723) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No.
1,2,3,4,5
MR HARSHADRAY A DAVE(3461) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 6
================================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SANJEEV J.THAKER
Date : 02/12/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant - State under Section
378(1)(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (the Code) against the
judgment and order dated 23.03.2007, passed by the learned Additional
Sessions Judge & Presiding Officer, FTC-2, Surat, in Special Case No.07
of 2005, acquitting the respondents - original accused from the offence
punishable under Sections 143, 149, 323, 506(2) of the Indian Penal
Code, 1860 (IPC) and Section 3(1)(10) of Atrocity Act.
2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are as under:-
The complainant Premji Keshavbhai Vadhena, lodged complaint
before Varacha Police Station for the offiences punishable Under Section
143, 149, 323, 506(2) of Indian Penal Code & section 3(1)(10) of
Atrocity Act stating therein that he is belonging to scheduled caste,
residing at 972, Hindu Meghvad Colony, Mahidharpura, Surat and ran
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/284/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/12/2025
undefined
tuition class. On 03/05/2002, his marriage was held with Sejalben as per
custom of Hindu ceremony at Registrar Office of Marriage bureau, which
was situted near Surat Bahumali. On 06/05/2002, when father of Sejalben
came to know that his daughter was married with complainant and took
her daughter with him, with the consent of complainant, and thereafter,
father of Sejalben never allowed her daughter to go back with her
husband. Pursuant to that, on 26/05/2003 and thereafter on 16/06/2003,
proceedings were filed to get his wife back.
The further case of the prosecution is that on 19/01/2005, when
complainant came out from temple of Umiya Mataji, at that time, one
Red Maruti Zen came there and his brother in law and his uncle in law
came out from the car and made the complainant sit in the car forcefully,
and thereafer, they took the complainant at Diamond Nagar Society,
Sardar Chowki line where from the mob of accused persons, accused
Vinubhai Laljibhai inflicted blow by hitting an iron chair on the waist of
complainant and accused Kamlesh Vinubhai, Hirenbhai Himmatbhai,
Rajnibhai Vallabhbhai and Pravinbhai and other 20 to 25 unknown
accused persons, inflicted fist blows on head, Chest, Mouth, Stomach,
rib, hand and different parts of body of complainant and when the
accused persons were physically assaulted the complainant vinubhai and
other persons abused him of his caste and also gave filthy words against
complainant caste.
2.1 Therefore aforesaid offence was registered against the respondents,
with Varacha Police Station vide I-C.R. No. 24 of 2005. Necessary
investigation was carried out and statements of several witnesses were
recorded. During the course of investigation ultimately, the respondents
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/284/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/12/2025
undefined
accused were arrested and charge-sheet was filed against them.
Thereafter, as the case was exclusively triable by the Sessions Court, the
same was committed to the Sessions Court.
2.2 The trial was initiated against the respondents and during course of
trial the prosecution examined 12 witnesses and produced 8 documents as
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 23.03.2007.
2.3 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 considered the evidence led by the prosecution and
looking to 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.
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
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/284/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/12/2025
undefined
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. 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.
5.1 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
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/284/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/12/2025
undefined
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.
5.2 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.
5.3 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 had taken into consideration the evidence
brought on record contrary to law. Similarly, wrong placing of burden
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/284/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/12/2025
undefined
of proof may also be a subject-matter of scrutiny by the appellate court.
(emphasis applied)
5.4 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".
5.5 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 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.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/284/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/12/2025
undefined
(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."
5.6 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.
5.7 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.
6. In the aforesaid background and considering the oral as well as
documentary evidence on record, following aspects weighed with this
Court.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/284/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/12/2025
undefined
(i) The trial Court has taken into consideration the crossexamination
of the complainant, vide Exhibit-29 wherein there are lot of contradiction
in his testimony.
(ii) The panch witness - Rajesh J. Das has been examined, vide
Exhibit-21, who has stated that while he was going to his residence, the
Police has taken his signature and he has not supported the case of the
prosecution and has turned hostile.
(iii) The other witness who has been examined, vide Exhibit-24,
Jitendrabhai Bhupatbhai Gohel who was also panch witness turned
hostile and has not supported the case of prosecution.
(iv) The prosecution has also recovered the chair and panchnama to
that effect has been recorded vide Exhibit-26 and punch witness
Jaisukhbhai Gajerabhai examined, vide Exhibit-25 and he has also
turned hostile and has not supported the case of the prosecution.
(v) The other witness of the said punchnama Samaji Amarbhai has not
been examined by the prosecution. The prosecution has also not
examined any independent witness. The prosecution has also not proved
as to who has assaulted the complainant. The prosecution has also not
proved that whether the complainant was assaulted by the accused or the
other persons who were part of the wedding celebration or the other
workers who were working nearby. The prosecution has also failed to
prove whether the complainant was assaulted as the people arround him
thought that he was a theif.
(vi) Even Docter who has been examined vide Exhibit-51 i.e. P.W.7,
Dr. Odhav M. Mangukiya has also deposed that the complainant has not
stated that who had assaulted him and the complainant has not given the
name of the accused being the person who had assaulted him. Even when
the complainant was taken to the Police Station he had initially not given
the name of the accused as person who had assaulted him.
(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
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/284/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/12/2025
undefined
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 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.
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. This Court has gone through the judgment and order passed by the
trial court. This Court has also perused the oral as well as documentary
evidence led by the trial court, more particularly the R & P received from
the trial court and also considered the submissions made by learned
Advocate for the appellant.
7.1 The trial court while considering the evidences in detail has
observed that the prosecution failed to prove the case against the has
accused beyond reasonable doubt. The trial court has gone into the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/284/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/12/2025
undefined
evidence in detail and has come to the conclusion that the accused are not
guilty of the alleged offence.
7.2 Thus, from the evidence itself it is established that the prosecution
has not proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. Ms. Shruti Pathak,
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.
8. In the above view of the matter, this Court is of the considered
opinion that the trial Court was completely justified in acquitting the
respondents of the charges leveled against them.
8.1 This Court finds 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.
8.2 This Court is, 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.
9. The judgment and order dated 23.03.2007 passed by the learned
Additional Sessions Judge & Presiding Officer, FTC-2, Surat acquitting
the respondents-accused is hereby confirmed. Bail bonds, if any, shall
stand cancelled. R & P to be sent back forthwith.
(SANJEEV J.THAKER,J)
Manoj Kumar Rai
