Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Patel Narendrabhai Manibhai @ Baghlo on 3 February, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/194/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/02/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 194 of 2010
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE S.V. PINTO Sd/-
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
PATEL NARENDRABHAI MANIBHAI @ BAGHLO
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR BHARGAV PANDYA, APP for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR ABHIJIT RATHOD(12976) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE S.V. PINTO
Date : 03/02/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant - State
under Section 378(1)(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
(hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') against the judgment and the
order dated 08.10.2009 in Special Atrocity Case No.18 of 2016
passed by the learned Special Judge (Atrocity), 3 rd Fast Track
Court, Mehsana camp at Visnagar (hereinafter referred to as 'the
learned Trial Court'), whereby, the learned Trial Court has
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/194/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/02/2025
undefined
acquitted the respondent - accused from the offences punishable
under Sections 504 and 507 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter
referred to as 'the IPC')and under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled
Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989
(hereinafter referred to as 'the Atrocities Act'). The respondent is
hereinafter referred to as 'the accused' as he stood in the rank and
file in the original case, for the sake of convenience, clarity and
brevity.
2. The relevant facts leading to filing of the present
appeal are as under:
2.1. The complainant Raghunath Savabhai Parmar has filed
the complaint stating that on 23.11.2008, he was at his home and at
around 7:45pm, there was a call on his mobile and his daughter
Shilpa picked up the phone and the person from the opposite end
gave caste slurs and asked his daughter where he was. That his
daughter gave him the phone and the person from the opposite
end told him that his men have closed his liquor and gambling
dens in Aslali, Ahmedabad and he was to kill him and his
gambling den was still functioning and if he had the guts to get it
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/194/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/02/2025
undefined
closed. When the complainant had asked him his name the person
told that his name was Narendrakumar Manilal Patel @ Vaga
Dada, residing at Aslali, Ahmedabad and he had called him from
Mobile No.9825452506 at about 19:46 hours. The complainant filed
the complaint being II-C.R.No.202 of 2008 registered with Unjha
Police Station for the offence punishable under Sections 504 and
507 of the IPC and under Section 3(1)(x) of the Atrocities Act on
23.11.2008 .
2.2. The accused was duly served with the summons and
the accused appeared before the learned Trial Court and it was
verified whether the copies of all the police papers were provided
to the accused as per the provisions of Section 207 of the Code and
a charge was framed by the learned Trial Court at Exh.3 and the
statements of the accused were recorded at Exh.4, wherein, the
accused denied all the contents of the charge and the entire
evidence of the prosecution was taken on record. The prosecution
has examined 6 witnesses and has produced 5 documentary
evidences in support of the case.
2.3. After the closing pursis was submitted by the learned
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/194/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/02/2025
undefined
APP at 21, the further statement of the accused under Section 313
of the Code was recorded. After hearing the arguments of the
learned APP and learned advocate for the accused and after
perusing the documents on record, the learned Trial Court, by the
impugned judgment and order, acquitted the accused for the
offences punishable under Sections 504 and 507 of the IPC and
under Section 3(1)(x) of the Atrocity Act.
3. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned
judgment and order passed by the learned Trial Court, the
appellant - State has filed the present appeal mainly stating that
the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Trial
Court is contrary to law, evidence on record and principles of
justice and the same is based on inferences not warranted by facts
of the case and also on presumption not permitted by law. The
learned Trial Court has not considered the direct or indirect
evidence produced in this case connecting the accused with the
crime and has also not appreciated the oral as well as
documentary evidence on record and has straightway arrived at
the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove the case
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/194/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/02/2025
undefined
beyond reasonable doubts. The learned Trial Court has erred in
considering minor omissions and contradictions in the evidence of
the prosecution and the learned Trial Court has given much
weightage to these minor omissions and contradictions. That the
reasons given by the learned Trial Court appreciating the
evidence and while acquitting the accused, are not proper and are
perverse and bad in law, and hence, the impugned judgment and
order deserves to be quashed and set aside.
4. Heard learned APP Mr. Bhargav Pandya for the
appellant - State and learned advocate Mr.Abhijit Rathod for the
respondent - accused. Perused the impugned judgment and order
of acquittal and have re-appreciated the entire evidence of the
prosecution on record of the case.
5. Learned APP Mr.Bhargav Pandya for the appellant -
State has taken this Court through the entire evidence produced
by the prosecution and has vehemently argued that the learned
Trial Court has not appreciated the evidence properly and the
prosecution has produced cogent evidence to prove the case and
has successfully proved the case against the accused but the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/194/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/02/2025
undefined
learned Trial Court has not considered the same and has acquitted
the accused. The judgment and order of acquittal passed by the
learned Judge is contrary to law, evidence on record and principles
of justice. The judgment and order of acquittal passed by learned
Judge is based on inferences, not warranted by facts of the case
and also on presumption, not permitted by law. Learned APP has
urged this Court to quash and set aside the impugned judgment
and order of acquittal and to find the accused guilty for the said
offence. Learned APP has urged this Court to allow the present
appeal and impose maximum sentence on the accused.
6. Learned advocate Mr.Abhijit Rathod for the accused
has submitted that the learned Trial Court has appreciated all the
evidence in true perspective and has not committed any error in
acquitting the accused. Therefore, no interference of this Court is
required in the impugned judgement and the order of acquittal
passed by the learned Trial Court and has urged this Court to
reject the appeal.
7. At the outset, before discussing the facts of the present
case, it would be appropriate to refer to the observations of the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/194/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/02/2025
undefined
Apex Court in the case of Chandrappa & Ors. Vs. State of
Karnataka reported in 2007 (4) SCC 415, the Apex Court has
observed as under:
Recently, in Kallu Vs. State of M.P. (2006) 10 SCC 313 :
AIR 2006 SC 831, this Court stated; "While deciding an appeal against
acquittal, the power of the Appellate Court is no less than the power
exercised while hearing appeals against conviction. In both types of
appeals, the power exists to review the entire evidence. However, one
significant difference is that an order of acquittal will not be interfered
with, by an appellate court, where the judgment of the trial court is
based on evidence and the view taken is reasonable and plausible. It
will not reverse the decision of the trial court merely because a
different view is possible. The appellate court will also bear in mind
that there is a presumption of innocence in favour of the accused and
the accused is entitled to get the benefit of any doubt. Further if it
decides to interfere, it should assign reasons for differing with the
decision of the trial court". (emphasis supplied)
........ From the above decisions, in our considered view, the following
general principles regarding powers of 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 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 emphasize the reluctance of an appellate
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/194/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/02/2025
undefined
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
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.
7.1 The Apex Court in yet another recent decision in case
of Sri Dattatraya Vs. Sharanappa arising out of Criminal Appeal
No. 3257 of 2024 (@ SLP (Crl.) No. 13179 of 2023), has observed as
under:
31. The instant case pertains to challenge against concurrent
findings of fact favouring the acquittal of the respondent, it
would be cogent to delve into an analysis of the principles
underlining the exercise of power to adjudicate a challenge
against acquittal bolstered by concurrent findings. The
following broad principles can be culled out after a
comprehensive analysis of judicial pronouncements:
i) Criminal jurisprudence emphasises on the fundamental
essence of liberty and presumption of innocence unless
proven guilty. This presumption gets emboldened by
virtue of concurrent findings of acquittal. Therefore, this
court must be extracautious while dealing with a
challenge against acquittal as the said presumption gets
reinforced by virtue of a well-reasoned favourable
outcome. Consequently, the onus on the prosecution
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/194/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/02/2025
undefined
side becomes more burdensome pursuant to the said
double presumption.
ii) In case of concurrent findings of acquittal, this Court
would ordinarily not interfere with such view
considering the principle of liberty enshrined in Article
21 of the Constitution of India 1950, unless perversity is
blatantly forthcoming and there are compelling reasons.
iii) Where two views are possible, then this Court would
not ordinarily interfere and reverse the concurrent
findings of acquittal. However, where the situation is
such that the only conclusion which could be arrived at
from a comprehensive appraisal of evidence, shows that
there has been a grave miscarriage of justice, then,
notwithstanding such concurrent view, this Court
would not restrict itself to adopt an oppugnant view.
[Vide State of Uttar Pradesh v. Dan Singh]
iv) To adjudge whether the concurrent findings of acquittal
are 'perverse' it is to be seen whether there has been
failure of justice. This Court in Babu v. State of Kerala
clarified the ambit of the term 'perversity' as
"if the findings have been arrived at by ignoring
or excluding relevant material or by taking into
consideration irrelevant/admissible material. The
finding may also be said to be perverse if it is
'against the weight of evidence', or if the finding
so outrageously defies logic as to suffer from the
vice of irrationality."
v) In situations of concurrent findings favoring accused,
interference is required where the trial court adopted an
incorrect approach in framing of an issue of fact and the
appellate court whilst affirming the view of the trial
court, lacked in appreciating the evidence produced by
the accused in rebutting a legal presumption. [Vide
Rajesh Jain v. Ajay Singh]
vi) Furthermore, such interference is necessitated to
safeguard interests of justice when the acquittal is based
on some irrelevant grounds or fallacies in re-appreciation
of any fundamental evidentiary material or a manifest
error of law or in cases of non-adherence to the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/194/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/02/2025
undefined
principles of natural justice or the decision is manifestly
unjust or where an acquittal which is fundamentally
based on an exaggerated adherence to the principle of
granting benefit of doubt to the accused, is liable to be set
aside. Say in cases where the court severed the
connection between accused and criminality committed
by him upon a cursory examination of evidences. [Vide
State of Punjab v. Gurpreet Singh and Others and Rajesh
Prasad v. State of Bihar.]
8. It is a settled principle of law that in an appeal against
acquittal, the Appellate Court is circumscribed by limitation that
no interference has to be made in the order of acquittal unless after
appreciation of the evidence produced before the learned Trial
Court, it appears that there are some manifest illegality of
perversity which could not have been possibly arrived at by the
Court. It is also a settled principle that there is no embargo on the
Appellate Court to review the evidence but, generally the order of
acquittal shall not be interfered with as the presumption of
innocence of the accused is further strengthened by the order of
acquittal. The golden thread which runs through the web of
administration of justice in criminal cases is that if two views are
possible on the evidence adduced in the case of the prosecution i.e.
(i) guilt of the accused and (ii) his innocence, the view, which is in
favour of the accused, should be adopted, and if the trial Court has
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/194/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/02/2025
undefined
taken the view in favour of the accused, the Appellate Court
should not disturb the findings of the acquittal. The Appellate
Court can interfere with the judgment and order of acquittal only
when there are compelling and substantial reasons and the order is
clearly unreasonable and where the Appellate Court comes to
conclusion that based on the evidence, the conviction is a must.
9. In light of the above, the evidence produced by the
prosecution on record is appreciated and the prosecution has
examined PW-1 Raghunath Savabhai Parmar at Exh.7 and the
witness is the complainant, who has fully supported the facts as
stated in the complaint, which is produced at Exh.8. During the
cross-examination by the learned advocate for the accused, the
witness has stated that he does not know how long the accused
spoke to him on his mobile and he had not heard the words
uttered by the person on the phone to his daughter. That no one
else had heard the conversation between him and the accused and
he had not given any evidence to the Investigating Officer that his
nephew Hitesh Narottam had given any application in the police
station. The witness has stated that a PASA warrant was issued
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/194/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/02/2025
undefined
against him with the allegantion that he was running a gambling
den.
9.1. The prosecution has examined PW-2 Shilpaben
Raghunath Parmar at Exh.9 and the witness is the daughter of the
complainant, who has stated that on 23.11.2008 at around 7:45pm,
she was at her house, when her father's mobile rang and she
picked up the phone and the voice from the opposite end gave a
caste slur and asked where her father was. She asked him who
was calling and he said that he was Narendra Patel, her father and
was calling from Aslali, Ahmedabad. She informed her father and
her father had filed a complaint at Unjha Police Station. During the
cross-examination by the learned advocate for the accused, the
witness has stated that she gave the telephone to her father within
10 to 20 seconds and as her father was in other room, he did not
hear what was spoken to her on the phone.
9.2. The prosecution has examined PW-3 Kamleshbhai
Danabhai Solanki at Exh.10 and the witness is the son in-law of the
complainant, who has supported the case of the complainant. The
witness has stated that when the phone came, he was sitting to
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/194/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/02/2025
undefined
have his dinner and his sister in-law had picked up the phone and
somebody was abusing her on the phone and she gave the phone
to her father who told him to record the conversation but when he
started to record the conversation, the person from the opposite
end switched off the phone. That his father in law had later on told
him that the person had called from Aslali, Ahmedabad.
9.3. The prosecution has examined PW-4 Shantaben
Ratnaji Gameti at Exh.11 and the witness is the PSO who has
registered the complaint of the complainant.
9.4. The prosecution has examined PW-5 Kalaji Maljibhai
Varu at Exh.13 and the witness is the Investigating Officer who
had taken over the investigation of Unjha Police II-C.R.No.202 of
2008. The witness has recorded the statement of the daughter of
the complainant and seized the telephone bill and had called for
the phone call details. During the cross-examination, the witness
has stated that Section 3(1)(x) of the Atrocities Act would be
applicable if a person has been intentionally insulted in a public
place and in this case, the accused did not insult the complainant
in a public place. That in the statement of witness Shilpaben, the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/194/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/02/2025
undefined
said fact is not stated and Shilpaben is the daughter of the
complainant.
9.5. The prosecution has examined PW-6 Khimjibhai Saluji
Baranda at Exh.17 and the witness is the Investigating Officer who
had taken over the investigation from PW-5 Kalabhai Maljibhai
Varu. The witness has stated that during investigation, he had
called for the phone details of the accused and has produced the
bill at Exh.20. During the cross-examination, the witness has stated
that prior to the incident, the complainant and the accused had a
conversation for three times which is evident from the document
produced at Exh.20. That the complainant had called the accused
and no explanation for the same was given. That Section 3(1)(10) of
the Atorcity Act would be applicable if any person is insulted at a
public place and in the complaint, it was not evident that any
insult had taken place in any public place.
10. On minute appreciation of the entire evidence of the
prosecution, the accused has been charged for the offence under
Section 3(1)(x) of the Atrocity Act, which reads as under :
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/194/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/02/2025
undefined
" 3. Punishments for offences of atrocities.--
[1] Whoever, not being a member of a Scheduled Caste or a
Scheduled Tribe:-
(i) xxx xxx xxx
(ii) xxx xxx xxx
(iii) xxx xxx xxx
(iv) xxx xxx xxx
(v) xxx xxx xxx
(vi) xxx xxx xxx
(vii) xxx xxx xxx
(viii) xxx xxx xxx
(ix) xxx xxx xxx
(x) intentionally insults or intimidates with intent to
humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or a
Scheduled Tribe in any place within public view;"
11. As per the case of the prosecution, the accused had
called the complainant on his mobile number on 23.07.2008 at
19:46 hours and when the accused called the mobile phone of the
complainant, PW-2 Shilpa Raghunath Parmar, daughter of the
complainant, had picked up the phone and the initial conversation
is supposed to have been with PW-2. Thereafter, she gave the
phone call to her father, the complainant, and it is on record that
the complainant did not hear the caste slurs used by the accused
on the phone. Besides the bald allegations of the complainant,
there is no other evidence that any such words were used or
incident had taken place and PW-3 Kamleshbhai Danabhai
Solanki, son in-law of the complainant, who was present in the
house, has not uttered any such words that were used by the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/194/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/02/2025
undefined
accused and has not stated that the complainant or his daughter
had told him that such an incident has occurred. The witness has
merely stated he was asked to record the conversation, by the
time, he began to record the conversation, the telephone was
switch off by the person from the opposite end.
11.1 As far as the offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the
Atrocities Act is concerned, the intentional insult or intimidation
with intention to humiliate a member of the Schedule Caste of
Schedule Tribe has to be within a public place and the
Investigating Officers, examined as PW-5 and PW-6, have both
stated that there was no intentional insult in any public place by
the accused. Moreover, the verbal altercation between the accused
and the complainant is with regard to the closure of some liquor
and gambling dens that were being run by the accused but there is
no iota of evidence regarding the same on record. There is nothing
to suggest that the accused was ever running any liquor or
gambling dens and that the complainant had in any manner filed
any application to get the same closed. The document produced at
Exh.20 shows the phone call details between the complainant and
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/194/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/02/2025
undefined
the accused and there is no clarification as to what were
conversation between them that had taken place earlier. Moreover,
the caste certificate of the complainant is produced at Exh.18 but
the prosecution has not examined any competent authority to
prove the contents of the caste certificate. In view of the above, as
there is no evidence to this effect, the contents of the document
produced at Exh.18 are not proved.
12. In view of the above, the learned trial Court has
appreciated the entire evidence in proper perspective and there
does not appear to be any infirmity and illegality in the impugned
judgment and order of acquittal. The learned Trial Court has
appreciated all the evidence and this Court is of the considered
opinion that the learned Trial Court was completely justified in
acquitting the accused of the charges leveled against them. The
findings recorded by the learned Trial Court are absolutely just
and proper and no illegality or infirmity has been committed by
the learned trial Court and this Court is in complete agreement
with the findings, ultimate conclusion and the resultant order of
acquittal recorded by the learned Trial Court. This Court finds no
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/194/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/02/2025
undefined
reason to interfere with the impugned judgment and order and the
present appeal is devoid of merits and resultantly, the same is
dismissed.
13. The impugned judgment and the order dated
08.10.2009 in Special Atrocity Case No.18 of 2016 passed by the
learned Special Judge (Atrocity), 3rd Fast Track Court, Mehsana
camp at Visnagar is hereby confirmed.
14. Bail bond stands cancelled. Record and proceedings be
sent back to the concerned Trial Court forthwith.
Sd/-
(S. V. PINTO,J)
F.S.KAZI.....
