[Cites 17, Cited by 0]

Gujarat High Court

State Of Gujarat vs Hanubhai Bodubhai Bhatti on 4 December, 2025

                                                                                                                    NEUTRAL CITATION




                            R/CR.A/1993/2010                                        JUDGMENT DATED: 04/12/2025

                                                                                                                     undefined




                                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                                               R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1993 of 2010

                       FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:


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

                                    Approved for Reporting                         Yes           No

                       ==========================================================
                                                     STATE OF GUJARAT
                                                           Versus
                                               HANUBHAI BODUBHAI BHATTI & ORS.
                       ==========================================================
                       Appearance:
                       MS SHRUTI PATHAK, APP for the Appellant(s) No. 1
                       MR DM THAKKAR(894) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1,2
                       RULE SERVED for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 3
                       ==========================================================

                          CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SANJEEV J.THAKER

                                                          Date : 04/12/2025

                                                         ORAL JUDGMENT

1. Feeling aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the

judgment and order of acquittal dated 30.08.2010 passed by rd the learned Special Judge and Presiding Officer, 3 Fast

Track Court, Junagadh, in Atrocity Sessions Case No.2 of

2009 for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 504,

506(2) and 114 of the Indian Penal Code, Section 3(1)10 of

the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of

Atrocities) Act 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/1993/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/12/2025

undefined

2. The prosecution case, as unfolded during the trial

before the lower Court, is that on 18.09.2007, at about 12:30

hours, when a complainant - Jagabhai Menandbhai Rathod,

who was residing at Sukhpur with his family and doing

labour work for his livelihood, went at the bank of Ojat

river, where Savitaben, wife of his elder brother, was

washing the clothes, at that time, Darbar Ranabhai, residing

at : Sodvadar and one unknown person came there by

holding stick and abuses them of their caste and thereafter,

unknown persons inflicted stick blow on the right leg of the

complainant; and that after abusing the complainant of the

caste, Ranabhai caught shirt-collar (' Kathlo') and threatened

and when Savitaben tried to intervened, threatened them to

kill by abusing of her caste. Therefore, the complainant lodged a complaint against the present accused with the

Keshod Police Station being C.R.- II No.3083 of 2007 for the

offences punishable under Sections 323, 504, 506(2) and 114

of the Indian Penal Code, Section 3(1)10 of the Scheduled

Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act

and Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act.

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. Since the

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1993/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/12/2025

undefined

offence alleged against the accused person/s was exclusively

triable by the Court of Sessions, the learned Magistrate

committed the case to the Sessions Court where it came to

be registered as Atrocity Sessions Case No.2 of 2009. 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.

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

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1993/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/12/2025

undefined

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.

7.1 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.

7.2 Though served, none appears for respondent No.3

- original complainant.

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1993/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/12/2025

undefined

8. In the aforesaid background, considering the oral

as well as documentary evidence on record, independently and

dispassionately and considering the impugned judgment and

order of the trial Court, the following aspects weighed with

the Court :

8.1 This Court has taken into consideration the

testimony of the P.W.1 - Jagabhai Menandbha - Complainant,

who has been examined vide Exh.17. In his examination-in-

chief, he has stated that he has been assaulted by

unidentified persons. He has deposed in his cross-examination

that when there was altercation between him and the

accused, nobody was present.

P.W.7 - Savitaben Mansukhbhai has been examined vide Exh.28, who happened to be a sister-in-law

('Bhabhi') of the complainant.

If the testimonies of P.W.1 - the Complainant and

P.W.7 - Savitaben Mansukhbhai are taken into consideration,

there are contradictions and discrepancies in their

testimonies.

8.2 In the first information report, which is produced

vide Exh.19, the name of Ranubhai (Accused No.2) is shown

as one of the accused and does not show the name of

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1993/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/12/2025

undefined

Hanubhai Bodubhai (Accused No.1).

The learned Sessions Court has rightly taken into

consideration that the prosecution has failed to justify the

delay in filing the said complaint.

If the testimony of P.W.5 - Dr.Vinodbhai

Sukhabhai Chavda, who has been examined as P.W.6, is

seen, it has come on record that the complainant had come

with his nephew - Chandresh with police yadi, whereas the

complainant in his cross-examination stated that he had gone

to the hospital alone.

8.3 The prosecution has also failed to prove the fact

that at the time of alleged incident, Hanubhai Bodubhai had

a stick in his hand. There is also contradiction to the fact

that when did the witness Savitaben - P.W.7 took treatment at the hospital and as to who took Savitaben to the hospital.

The prosecution has also failed to prove as to who was

carrying the stick in his hand. The prosecution has also not

proved that Savitaben was injured because of the assault by

the accused. With respect to the abuse to the caste, there is

nothing coming on the record. There are lot of contradictions

in the said testimony of the witness. The prosecution has not

been able to prove that the accused have committed the

offence punishable under Sections 504 and 114 of Indian

Penal Code.

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1993/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/12/2025

undefined

8.4 Therefore, the prosecution has not proved the case

against the accused for the offence as alleged. 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 an offence under the

Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of

Atrocities) Act, 1989.

8.5 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

Atrocities Act. The trial Court has gone into the evidence in

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1993/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/12/2025

undefined

detail and has come to the conclusion that the accused are

not guilty of the alleged offence.

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, this Court is 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.

11. It is also a settled legal position that in acquittal

appeal, the appellate court is not required to re-write the

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1993/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/12/2025

undefined

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/1993/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/12/2025

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

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1993/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/12/2025

undefined

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

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.

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1993/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/12/2025

undefined

(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 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

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1993/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/12/2025

undefined

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

acquitted the respondents - accused for the elaborate reasons

stated in the impugned judgment and I also endorse the