Gujarat High Court
Nirmalaben Chhaganbhai Patel vs State Of Gujarat on 12 February, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/655/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/02/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL (AGAINST ACQUITTAL) NO. 655 of 2024
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE S.V. PINTO
==================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
No
==================================================
NIRMALABEN CHHAGANBHAI PATEL
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==================================================
Appearance:
MR. PRERAK R BHATT(11381) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR SHRIRAJ D SHAH(10475) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 2
MS. JIRGA JHAVERI, APP for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1
==================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE S.V. PINTO
Date : 12/02/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant - original complainant
under Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the
judgement and order of acquittal passed by the learned Chief Judicial
Magistrate First Class, Navsari in Criminal Case No. 1453 of 2014 on
26-06-2019 confirmed by the learned Sessions Judge, Navsari in
Criminal Appeal No. 8 of 2022 on 23-05-2023, whereby, the learned
Trial Courts have acquitted the respondent for the offence punishable
under Sections 504 and 506(2) of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereafter
referred to as "IPC" for short).
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/655/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/02/2025
undefined
1.1 The respondent is hereinafter referred to as the accused in the rank
and file as they stood in the original case for the sake of convenience,
clarity and brevity.
2. The brief facts that emerge from the record of the case are as
under:
2.1 That the complainant Nirmalaben Chhaganbhai Patel filed the
complaint on 01-02-2014 stating that on 27-11-2013, she was at home, at
around 06:00 pm, along with her brother Mohanbhai and Nileshbhai and
at that time Champakbhai Samjibhai Rathod residing in her street abused
her in a loud voice and told her that she was barren. That, she asked him
why he was calling her barren and abusing her and he told her that she
did not have any property and to get out from the house or he would kill
her and he went away. The complainant filed the complaint before the
Jalalpur Police Station, Navsari (Rural) for the offence under Sections
504, 506(2) and 114 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, which was
registered as II-C.R.No. 13 of 2014 on 01/02/2014.
2.2 The Investigating Officer recorded the statements of the connected
witnesses and seized the necessary documents and after completion of
investigation, a chargesheet came to be filed before the learned Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Navsari.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/655/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/02/2025
undefined
2.3 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. A charge at Exh. 4 was framed
against the accused and the statement of the accused was recorded at
Exh. 5, wherein, the accused denied all the contents of the charge and the
entire evidence of the prosecution was taken on record.
2.4 The prosecution produced the following evidence to bring home
the charge against the accused.
ORAL EVIDENCE
Sr. P. W. Name of the witnesses Exh.
No Nos
DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE
Sr. Particulars Exh.
No
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/655/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/02/2025
undefined
2.5 After the evidence of the prosecution was closed, the further
statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 was recorded, wherein, the accused denied all the
evidence of the prosecution on record. The accused refused to step into
the witness box or examine witnesses on his behalf and stated that a false
case has been filed against him. After the arguments of the learned
Additional Public Prosecutor and the learned advocate for the accused
were heard, the learned Trial Court by the impugned judgment and order
was pleased to acquit all the accused from all the charges leveled against
him.
3. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said judgement and
order of acquittal, the appellant - State filed Criminal Appeal No. 8 of
2022 before the learned Sessions Court, Navsari and by the judgment
and order dated 23-05-2023, the learned Sessions Judge, Navsari was
pleased to reject the appeal of the appellant and confirmed the order
passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate First Class in Criminal
Case No. 1453 of 2014 on 28-06-2019.
4. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and order, the
appellant - original complainant has filed the present appeal mainly
stating that the impugned judgement and order of acquittal passed by the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/655/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/02/2025
undefined
learned Trial Court and learned Sessions Court is contrary to law and
evidence on record and the learned Courts have not appreciated the fact
that all the witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution and
during cross-examination, nothing adverse has been elicited in favour of
the respondent. The case has been proved beyond reasonable doubt and
the prosecution has successfully established the case against the
respondents and the judgement and order of acquittal is unwarranted,
illegal and without any basis in the eyes of law and the reasons stated
while acquitting the respondent are improper, perverse and bad in law.
Hence the impugned judgment and orders passed by the learned Courts
deserve to be quashed and set aside.
5. Heard learned Advocate Mr. Prerak R Bhatt for the appellant -
original complainant, learned APP Ms. Jirga Jhaveri for the respondent
No.1-State and learned advocate Mr. Shriraj D Shah for the respondent
No.2- accused. Perused the impugned judgement and order of acquittal
and have reappreciated the entire evidence of the prosecution on record
of the case.
6. Learned advocate Mr. Bhatt has taken this Court through the all
evidence on record and has submitted that the appellant - original
complainant was abused and threatened but the learned trial Court has
not appreciated the evidence in true perspective. The appellant has
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/655/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/02/2025
undefined
proved that the incident has occurred and the impugned judgments and
orders are bad in law, perverse, arbitrary and are required to be quashed
and set aside.
7. Learned APP Ms. Jirga Jhaveri has submitted that the judgments
and orders have been passed after appreciation of all the evidence and the
learned Courts have appreciated the evidence in proper perspective and
hence, the appeal must be rejected.
8. Learned advocate Mr. Shah for the respondent No. 2-accused has
submitted that both the learned Courts have appreciated all the evidences
and passed the judgement and orders of acquittal, which are just and
proper and no interference is required in the same and learned Advocate
for the respondent has urged this court to reject the appeal of the
appellant.
9. At the outset, before discussing the facts of the present case, it
would be appropriate to refer to the observations of the Apex Court
regarding the scope of interference in acquittal appeals in the case of
Chandrappa & Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka reported in 2007 (4) SCC
415, wherein, the Apex Court has observed as under:
Recently, in Kallu v. 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
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/655/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/02/2025
undefined
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 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."
9.1 The Apex Court in yet another recent decision in case of Sri
Dattatraya Vs. Sharanappa arising out of Criminal Appeal No. 3257 of
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/655/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/02/2025
undefined
2024 (@ SLP (Crl.) No. 13179 of 2023) 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 extra-cautious 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 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
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/655/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/02/2025
undefined
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 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.]
10. The law with regard to acquittal appeals is well crystallized and in
acquittal appeals, there is presumption of innocence in favour of the
accused and it has finally culminated when a case ends in an acquittal.
That the learned Trial Courts have appreciated all the evidence and when
the learned Trial Court has come to a conclusion that the prosecution has
not proved the case beyond reasonable doubts, the presumption of
innocence in favour of the accused gets strengthened. That there is no
inhibition to re appreciate the evidence by the Appellate Court but if after
re appreciation, the view taken by the learned Trial Court was a possible
view, there is no reason for the Appellate Court to interfere in the same.
11. In light on the above settled principles of law and considering the
evidence on the prosecution, to bring home the charge against the
accused, the prosecution has examined Prosecution Witness No. 1 -
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/655/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/02/2025
undefined
Nirmalaben Chhaganlal Patel at Exh.06 and the witness is the ho has
complainant, who has narrated the facts as stated in the complaint.
During the cross-examination, the witness has stated that civil litigations
regarding the land situated at Tavadi village are pending and the accused
had deposed against her in that case. That in the complaint, she had
stated that the accused had threatened to get her killed and had abused
her and had threatened to kill her family members but the police has not
written the same in the complaint.
11.1 The prosecution has examined Prosecution Witness No. 2 -
Bipinbhai Dhanjibhai Rathod at Exh. 10 and the witness is the panch
witness of the panchnamas of the place of offence, which are produced at
Exh. 11 and Exh. 12. The witness has not supported the case of the
prosecution and has stated that the police had asked him to affix his
signature on the ready panchnamas and he does not know what was
stated in the panchnamas. The witness has been declared hostile and
during the cross examination, nothing to support the case of the
prosecution has come on record.
11.2 The prosecution has examined Prosecution Witness No. 3 -
Nileshbhai Mohanbhai Patel at Exh. 13 and the witness is the nephew of
the complainant but he has stated that he does not know anything about
the incident and he does not know whether the police has recorded the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/655/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/02/2025
undefined
statement or not. The witness has been declared hostile and has been
cross examined at length, wherein he has stated that in 2013, he was at
his home when the accused came near his house and started shouting
loudly about the land. That his Aunty asked him why he was giving
abuses and he had told her that she did not have any property at that
place and to go away from there and threatened to kill her and his Aunty
had filed the complaint in the Police Station.
During the cross-examination by the learned advocate for the
accused, the witness has stated that he does not know the date and time
of the incident and does not know when the police has recorded the
statement and he had not given any statement to the police. That his
father and the accused have lands at Tavadi village and the litigations are
pending before the Civil Court and the accused had deposed against them
in that case. That, he had not given any statement to the police and the
road near their houses is a very busy road.
11.3 The prosecution has examined Prosecution Witness No. 4 -
Bavanbhai Fuljibhai Patel at Exh. 14 and the witness is the Investigating
Officer, who has narrated in detail the procedure that he had undertaken
during the investigation of the offence.
During the cross-examination by the learned advocate for the
accused, the witness has stated that the incident has occurred on 27-12-
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/655/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/02/2025
undefined
2013 and the complaint is filed on 01-02-2014 but the complainant did
not give any explanation about the delay in filing the complaint. That the
witnesses are the nephew and brother of the complainant and the alleged
incident had occurred in Deep Mangal Society. That he had not recorded
the statements of the independent witnesses and the complainant and the
accused are residing in the same street. There are land disputes pending
between the complainant and the accused.
12 The accused has been charged with the offence under Section 504
of the IPC and it would be appropriate to reproduce the observations of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of B. V.Ramkumar Vs. State of
Telangana in Criminal Appeal No. _____ of 2025 arising out of the SLP
(Cri). No(s). 7887 of 2024 passed on 10-02-2025, wherein, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in paras 21 to 25 has observed thus;
21. Further, this Court in the case of Mohammad Wajid v. State of U.P., 11
while discussing Section 504, IPC, propounded the test for considering the
circumstances wherein, an abusive language takes the form and shape of an
intentional insult and held thus:-
"28. Section 504 of the IPC contemplates intentionally insulting a person
and thereby provoking such person insulted to breach the peace or
intentionally insulting a person knowing it to be likely that the person
insulted may be provoked so as to cause a breach of the public peace or to
commit any other offence. Mere abuse may not come within the purview of
the section. But, the words of abuse in a particular case might amount to an
intentional insult provoking the person insulted to commit a breach of the
public peace or to commit any other offence. If abusive language is used
intentionally and is of such a nature as would in the ordinary course of
events lead the person insulted to break the peace or to commit an offence
under the law, the case is not taken away from the purview of the Section
merely because the insulted person did not actually break the peace or
commit any offence having exercised self-control or having been subjected
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/655/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/02/2025
undefined
to abject terror by the offender. In judging whether particular abusive
language is attracted by Section 504, IPC, the court has to find out what, in
the ordinary circumstances, would be the effect of the abusive language
used and not what the complainant actually did as a result of his peculiar
idiosyncrasy or cool temperament or sense of discipline. It is the ordinary
general nature of the abusive language that is the test for considering
whether the abusive language is an intentional insult likely to provoke the
person insulted to commit a breach of the peace and not the particular
conduct or temperament of the complainant.
29. Mere abuse, discourtesy, rudeness or insolence, may not amount to an
intentional insult within the meaning of Section 504, IPC if it does not have
the necessary element of being likely to incite the person insulted to commit
a breach of the peace of an offence and the other element of the accused
intending to provoke the person insulted to commit a breach of the peace or
knowing that the person insulted is likely to commit a breach of the peace.
Each case of abusive language shall have to be decided in the light of the 11
2023 SCC Online SC 951.
22. Needless to say, that mere abuse, discourtesy, rudeness or insolence does not
amount to an intentional insult within the meaning of Section 504, IPC.
Furthermore, it would be immaterial that the person who has been insulted and
provoked did not actually break the peace or commit any offence.
23. Section 504, IPC consists of two parts. Firstly, the actus reus- being the
intentional insult which gives rise to the provocation. Secondly, the mens roa
i.e., the intention or knowledge on the part of the accused that such intentional
provocation is likely to cause the person insulted to break public peace or
commit any other offence. The animus nocendi in Section 504, IPC is that the
accused should 'intentionally insult' the other person with the intention or
knowledge that the provocation caused by such insult is likely to result in the
commission of breach of public peace or any other offence by the person who
has been so insulted. The offence is said to be complete once the accused person
makes 'intentional insult' with the aforesaid mens rea. Hence, intention or
knowledge on the part of accused person that his actions of making intentional
insult' have the potential to provoke the person insulted is sine qua non for the
commission of the offence under Section 504, IPC.
24. The natural corollary of the above discussion is that if the accused does not
intend to give provocation, the offence is not made out. An insult without an
intention to insult' is not punishable under Section 504, IPC. Further, intentional
insult' must be of such a degree that it has the potential to provoke a reasonable
person to break the public peace or to commit any other offence.
25. It is trite that whether the person provoked further commits an illegal
act or not is immaterial to draw the conclusion of culpability under Section 504
IPC. The 'intentional insult' and provocation must be so proximate and close
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/655/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/02/2025
undefined
that the accused has either the intention or the knowledge that the intentional
insult made by him is likely to cause the provoked person to break public peace
or commit some other offence. However, what would be the nature of
'intentional insult' causing provocation, to draw culpability under Section 504,
IPC would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. The test to be
applied to determine if the intentional insult made by the accused is sufficient to
cause provocation is that of a reasonable person, i.e., Criminal Appeal @
SLP(Crl.) No(s). 7887 of 2024 if the insult is sufficient to provoke any
reasonable person liable for the offence under Section 504, IPC to break peace
or commit any other offence, only then the accused will be
13. In light of the above settled principles of law and perusing the
evidence of the prosecution on record, the alleged incident has occurred
on 27-12-2013 and the complainant has filed the complaint on 01-02-
2014 but there is no explanation regarding the delay in filing the
complaint, except for the bald allegations of the complainant there is no
independent evidence that the incident has occurred, even though the
busy incident has occurred in a busy residential area where both the
complainant and the accused are residing. The complainant has not
specifically stated what abuses were given and there is nothing on record
to suggest that there was any intention on the part of the accused to give
provocation that the complainant was likely to break public peace or
commit any other offences.
14. In view of the settled position of law in the decisions of
Chandrappa (supra) and B.V.Ramkumar (supra) 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
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/655/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/02/2025
undefined
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
reason to interfere with the impugned judgment and order and the present
appeal is devoid of merits and resultantly, the same is dismissed.
15. The impugned judgement and order of acquittal passed by the
learned Chief Judicial Magistrate First Class, Navsari, in Criminal Case
No. 1453 of 2014 on 26-06-2019 as well as order passed by the learned
Sessions Judge, Navsari in Criminal Appeal No. 8 of 2022 on 23-05-
2023 are hereby confirmed.
16. Bail bond stands cancelled. Record and proceedings be sent back
to the concerned Trial Court forthwith.
17. Bail bond stands cancelled. Record and proceedings be sent back
to the concerned Trial Court forthwith.
Sd/-
(S. V. PINTO,J)
VVM
