[Cites 13, Cited by 0]

Gujarat High Court

Rituben Manharbhai Makwana vs Raginiben W/O Virendrasinh Amethiya on 4 December, 2025

                                                                                                                               NEUTRAL CITATION




                              R/CR.A/8/2025                                                   JUDGMENT DATED: 04/12/2025

                                                                                                                                undefined




                                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                                R/CRIMINAL APPEAL (AGAINST ACQUITTAL) NO. 8 of 2025


                       FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:


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

                                    Approved for Reporting                                 Yes                No

                       ==========================================================
                                             RITUBEN MANHARBHAI MAKWANA
                                                         Versus
                                      RAGINIBEN W/O VIRENDRASINH AMETHIYA & ANR.
                       ==========================================================
                       Appearance:
                       MR VAIBHAV A VYAS & MS PRACHI UPADHYAY, ADVOCATES for the
                       Appellant
                       MR HB CHAMPAVAT, ADVOCATE for Respondent No. 1
                       MR YUVRAJ BRAHMBHATT, APP for Respondent No. 2 - State
                       ==========================================================

                          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 14.11.2024 passed by

the learned Special Judge [Scheduled Castes and Scheduled th Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,] and 7 Additional

Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural), in Special Atrocity Case

No.104 of 2016 for the offences punishable under Section 324

of the Indian Penal Code, Section 135(1) of the Bombay

Police Act and Section 3(1)R of the Scheduled Castes and the

Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, ('the Atrocities

Act' for short) the appellant - original complainant has

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/8/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/12/2025

undefined

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 on 19.09.2016 at about 10:45

a.m., when the complainant - present appellant, who is an

advocate, was going to the Court riding on her Activa and

when she reached at the Gurukul Tri-junction, she had to

stop there as the traffic signal had turned red. When she

stopped at that traffic junction, suddenly, the accused came

from behind and hit her on her head with a wooden stick.

Due to that blow, blood started oozing out of her head. As

the public gathered, the accused ran away from the place of

incident and the appellant left her vehicle at the place of

incident and proceeded to Police Station in auto-rickshaw, where she was sent to the Sola Civil Hospital for treatment.

Therefore, a complaint is lodged by her with the Vastrapur

Police Station being C.R. No.152 of 2016 for the offences

punishable under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code,

Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act and Section 3(1)(R) of

the Atrocities Act against the 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. Since the

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/8/2025 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 Special Atrocity Case No.104 of 2016. 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 advocates for the appellant - original

complainant have 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

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/8/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/12/2025

undefined

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.

7.1 As against that, learned advocate for the respondent/s - original accused 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 Learned APP for the State supports the case of

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/8/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/12/2025

undefined

the prosecution as well as also supports the arguments

canvassed by the learned advocate for the appellant -

original accused. It is submitted that the learned trial Court

has committed an error acquitting the accused. It is

submitted that this appeal may be dismissed.

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 No independent witnesses are examined by the

prosecution. The prosecution has examined P.W.7 - Shivabhai

Amarsangbhai Koli Patel vide Exh.40, who has stated that he has not seen the said incident. He has stated in the cross-

examination that he does not have any personal knowledge

about the said incident.

8.2 The prosecution has also examined P.W.8 -

Sahilbhai Halubhai Desai vide Exh.41, who was not the eye

witness to the said incident. He has not supported the case

of the prosecution.

8.3 The prosecution has examined P.W. 10 -

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/8/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/12/2025

undefined

Shankarbhai Valjibhai Kalal vide Exh.59. He has also not

supported the case of the prosecution and has turned hostile.

8.4 The prosecution has examined the panchas of the

said incident vide Exhs.22 and 32. The other panchas of the

panchnama of seizure of muddammal have been examined

vide Ex.38 and they have also not supported the case of the

prosecution.

8.5 If the testimony of P.W.9 - Dr.Pravinkumar

Shankarbhai Patel, who has been examined vide Exh.9, is

seen, it has come on record that there was a minor injury to

the complainant.

8.6 The prosecution has also not been able to prove the fact that the accused had made offensive remarks on the

caste of the complainant.

8.7 Even in the complaint also, there is no statement

that the complainant was abused of the caste. The

prosecution has also not proved its case by examining P.W.7

- Shivabhai Amarsangbhai, P.W.8 - Sahilbhai Halubhai Desai

and P.W.10 - Shankarbhai Valjibhai Kalal. The alleged

assault by the stick has also not been proved by the

prosecution.

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/8/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/12/2025

undefined

8.8 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.

8.9 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. 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.

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/8/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/12/2025

undefined

9. Further, learned advocates for the appellant -

original complainant as well as learned APP for the State

are 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/8/2025 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/8/2025 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/8/2025 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/8/2025 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/8/2025 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