[Cites 18, Cited by 0]

Gujarat High Court

State Of Gujarat vs Vaghari Nareshbhai Chamanbhai on 4 December, 2025

                                                                                                                        NEUTRAL CITATION




                            R/CR.A/1065/2010                                            JUDGMENT DATED: 04/12/2025

                                                                                                                         undefined




                                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                                               R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1065 of 2010


                       FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:


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

                                    Approved for Reporting                            Yes            No

                       ==========================================================
                                                    STATE OF GUJARAT
                                                          Versus
                                          VAGHARI NARESHBHAI CHAMANBHAI & ORS.
                       ==========================================================
                       Appearance:
                       MS SHRUTI PATHAK, APP for the Appellant(s) No. 1
                       HCLS COMMITTEE(4998) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3,4
                       MR.HARDIK B SHAH(3751) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3,4
                       UNSERVED EXPIRED (N) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 5
                       ==========================================================

                          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 31.3.2010 passed by

the learned Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Patan in

Special (Atrocity) Case No.35 of 2008 for the offences

punishable under Sections 323, 504, 506(2), 114 and 135 of

the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled

Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) 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/1065/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/12/2025

undefined

2. The prosecution case as unfolded during the trial

before the lower Court is that at about 18.00 hours on

27.2.2008, the complainant went near the S.T.bus stand at

Siddhpur, where the accused were fighting and on his asking

about why they are fighting, the accused no.1 got excited and

started using filthy and abusive language and also hit the

complainant with iron pipe on the chest and back and the

other accused kicked the complainant and therefore caused

injury to him; that the accused also started hurling abusive

language about the caste of the complainant and threatened

to kill him. Therefore, the complaint was lodged.

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

offence alleged against the accused person/s was exclusively

triable by the Special Court, the learned Magistrate

committed the case to the concerned Special Court where it

came to be registered as Sessions Case (Atrocity) No.35 of

2008. 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

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1065/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/12/2025

undefined

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

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

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1065/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/12/2025

undefined

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. 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 It is the case of the complainant that he was

assaulted with an iron pipe. The Court has taken into

consideration the deposition of P.W.1 - Dr.Rahimbhai

Ibrahimbhai Memon - Exh.18 as well as the Injury

Certificate issued by him - Exh.19. From the said evidence,

this Court finds that the fact of the complainant being

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1065/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/12/2025

undefined

assaulted with iron pipe has not been proved.

8.2 The entire case of the complainant is that there

was fight between the accused and Jatinji Babuji - P.W.6.

The said Jatinji has been examined vide Exh.27. But the fact

remains that the said witness has not supported the case of

the prosecution and has turned hostile.

8.3 The other eye witnesses are the mother of the

complainant viz., Kantaben Javabhai, who has been examined

as P.W.7, vide Exh.31 and the aunt of the complainant viz.,

Nathiben Mangabhai, who has been examined as P.W.9, vide

Exh.33. Both the witnesses have stated that they had

reached at the place of offence, but from the oral evidence

and the testimony of the P.W.6 - Jatinji and P.W.9 - Nathiben, it has come on record that the distance of place of

offence and the residence of the complainant is around 10-15

minutes away and therefore, the prosecution has not been

able to prove that the said witnesses were present at the

time of the alleged offence.

Moreover, if the evidence of P.W.8 - Rameshji

Motiji Bhil, who has been examined vide Exh.32, is taken

into consideration, he identifies the accused, but from the

cross-examination, it has come on record that he is working

with the mother of the complainant. Therefore, the evidence

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1065/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/12/2025

undefined

of said witness does not inspire confidence.

Moreover, it has come on the record that the said

place of offence is a public place, but no independent

witnesses have been examined by the prosecution. Even the

Investigating Officer, who has been examined as P.W.13 vide

Exh.49, has not placed on the record the statement of other

shop owners, who were present at the time of the alleged

incident.

8.4 The oral evidence of the complainant - Rajeshbhai

Javabhai, P.W.11, has been examined vide Exh.37. If the

same is taken into consideration as it is, it transpires that

there are lot of contradictions and discrepancies in the

deposition with respect to the date of incident. The entire

case of the complainant is that there was a fight between Jatinji and Naresh, but the prosecution has not been able to

prove the said fact.

                                         The           Sessions     Court           has     also        taken         into

                       consideration             the     evidence       of    the    Investigating          Officer        -

                       Jayantibhai              Makwana,         ASI,        who    has    been       examined           as

P.W.13, vide Exh.49, whereby it has also come on the record

that the complainant, while making the statement, has not

stated that he was assaulted or abused.

8.5 Therefore, the prosecution has not proved the case

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1065/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/12/2025

undefined

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 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.

8.6 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

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1065/2010 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/1065/2010 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:

"The powers of the High Court in an appeal from order of acquittal to reassess the evidence and

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1065/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/12/2025

undefined

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 cannot be upset.

It is further observed that High Court's interference in such

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1065/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/12/2025

undefined

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.

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1065/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/12/2025

undefined

(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 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

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1065/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/12/2025

undefined

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