Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Patel Narayanbhai Becharbhai on 20 February, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/979/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/02/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 979 of 2008
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE S.V. PINTO
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
No
==========================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
PATEL NARAYANBHAI BECHARBHAI & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS.JIRGA JHAVERI, APP for the Appellant(s) No. 1
DS AFF.NOT FILED (R) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 3
MR MC BAROT(144) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1
MR TEJAS M BAROT(2964) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1
MR. KULDEEP D VAIDYA(7045) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE S.V. PINTO
Date : 20/02/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant State under Section
378(1)(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the
judgement and order of acquittal passed by the learned Special (ATRO)
Judge, Mehsana (hereinafter referred to as "the learned Trial Court") in
Special (ATRO) Case No. 36 of 2007 on 22-11-2007, whereby, the
learned Trial Court has acquitted the respondent for the offence
punishable under Sections 323, 504 and 506(2) of the Indian Penal Code,
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/979/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/02/2025
undefined
1860 (hereinafter referred to as " IPC") and Section 3(1)(10) of the
Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,
1885 (hereafter referred to as "Atrocities Act".).
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 On 05/02/2007 at around 10:00 am, the complainant - Govindbhai
Hamirbhai Parmar (Harijan-Chamar), his wife Ranjan, Natwarbhai
Kantibhai Parmar, Bhavanbhai Somabhai Parmar, were standing at the
bus-stand at around 10:15am and Naranbhai Becharbhai came from the
opposite side and as the complainant had to take the wages for the labour
contract, he demanded the same from him and Naranbhai Becharbhai got
angry and abused the complainant and used the caste-slurs and
threatened to cut him into pieces and kill him. The accused also tried to
physically assault the complainant and at that time, his wife Ranjanben,
Natwarbhai Kantibhai Parmar, Bhavanbhai Somabhai Parmar and
Ambarji Govaji Thakor of Dhodiya village intervened and released him
from the hold of Naranbhai Bechardas Patel. That the complainant
Govindbhai Hamirbhai Parmar (Harijan-Chamar) had taken a labour
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/979/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/02/2025
undefined
contract of Dhodiya village from the Sarpanch Naranbhai Bechardas
Patel and he was paid some amount and an amount of Rs.1,25,000/- was
outstanding and as the complainant demanded for the same, the incident
has occurred. The complainant filed the complaint at Kadi Police Station
under Sections 323, 504 and 506(2) of the IPC and Section 3(1)(10) of
the Atrocities Act and which was registered as I-C.R.No.6 of 2007.
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 Court of learned
Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kadi and as the said offences against the
accused were exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the case was
committed to the Sessions Court, Mahesana as per the provisions of
Section 209 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and case was registered
Special (ATRO) Case No. 36 of 2007.
2.3 The accused were 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. 2 was framed
against the accused and the statement of the accused was recorded at
Exh. 3, wherein, the accused denied the contents of the charge and the
entire evidence of the prosecution was taken on record.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/979/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/02/2025
undefined
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.
8. Vouchers 20 to 27
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/979/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/02/2025
undefined
2.5 After the learned Additional Public Prosecutor filed the closing
pursis at Exh. 29, the further statement of the accused under Section 313
of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 were 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 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 has filed the present appeal
mainly stating that the impugned judgement and order of acquittal passed
by the learned Trial Court is contrary to law and evidence on record and
the learned Trial Court has not appreciated the fact that all the witnesses
have supported the case of the prosecution and during the cross-
examination, nothing adverse has been elicited in favour of the
respondent. The case has been proved beyond reasonable doubts and the
prosecution has successfully established the case against the respondent
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/979/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/02/2025
undefined
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 order passed by the learned Trial Court
deserves to be quashed and set aside.
4. Heard learned APP Ms. Jirga Jhaveri for the appellant State and
learned advocate Mr. Kuldeep Vaidya for the respondent-accused.
Perused the impugned judgement and order of acquittal and have
reappreciated the entire evidence of the prosecution on record of the
case.
5. Learned APP Ms. Jirga Jhaveri has taken this Court through the
entire evidence of the prosecution on record of the case and has
submitted that the prosecution has produced oral evidences of nine
witnesses and fifteen documentary evidences but the learned trial Court
has not appreciated the evidence and has wrongly come to the conclusion
that the prosecution has not proved the case beyond reasonable doubts.
The reasons given by the learned trial Court are shaky and there are no
cogent reasons to arrive at the conclusion that the charge against the
accused are not proved. The learned trial Court has not appreciated the
entire evidence in proper perspective. Learned APP has urged this Court
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/979/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/02/2025
undefined
that the impugned judgement and order is improper, perverse and bad in
law and is required to be quashed and set aside.
6. Learned advocate Mr. Kuldeep Vaidya for the respondent has
submitted that the learned Trial Court has appreciated all the evidences
and passed the judgement and order of acquittal which is 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.
7. At the outset, before discussing the facts of the present case, it
would be appropriate to refer to the observations of the Apex Court 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 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;
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/979/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/02/2025
undefined
(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.
8. The law with regard to acquittal appeals is well crystallized and in
acquittal appeals, there is a presumption of innocence in favour of the
accused and it has finally culminated when a case ends in an acquittal.
The learned Trial Court has 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. There is no inhibition to re
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/979/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/02/2025
undefined
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.
9. 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
Govindbhai Hamirbhai Parmar at Exh. 06 and the witness is the
complainant, who has stated that the incident occurred on 05/02/2007 on
the road of Dhodiya village. The accused is the Sarpanch of Dhodiya
Village and he, his wife Ranjan and his nephew Natwarbhai were
standing at the bus stop and an amount of Rs.1,25,000/- was to be paid
by the Sarpanch, which was unpaid for one year and when the accused
came the bus stand, the complainant demanded for his money and the
accused got angry and abused him and physically assaulted him. The
accused used caste slurs and threatened to kill him and cut him into
pieces. That his wife Ranjanben and his nephew Natwarbhai intervened
and he went to the hospital on 06/02/2007 and filed the complaint, which
is produced at Exh. 7.
During the cross examination by the learned advocate for the
accused, the witness has stated that he has completed all the work given
to him by the Panchayat and he has not given any notice or written a
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/979/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/02/2025
undefined
letter to the Dhodiya Gram Panchayat for the accounts. That he did not
go to the Sarpanch for demanding his money and did not give any notice
through his advocate. That whenever the panchayat would pay him the
money, they would take a receipt and the amount was paid in cash. The
Social Welfare Department, gives assistance to person of the Baxi Panch
for a residential house and in his statement before the police, he has
stated that his money for construction of the house is pending from the
Social Welfare Department. The scheme is Din Dayal Scheme and an
amount of Rs.40,000/- is given as assistance. That after a report is sent
by the Supervisor of the Taluka Panchayat, the payment is made and a
cheque in the name of owner is given. That the accused had given him
goods of for Rs.66000/- which was to be paid after the assistance was
given and he had bought onions worth Rs.5000/- from the accused. That
he had to pay an amount of Rs.71,000/- for cement and other goods to
the accused. The place, where the incident occurred, has a number of pan
cabins and he had gone to the hospital on the next day.
9.1 The prosecution has examined Prosecution Witness No. 2
Shambhuji Jehraji Thakore at Exh: 09 and the witness is the panch
witness of the panchnama of the place of offence, which is produced at
Exh. 10.
9.2 The prosecution has examined Prosecution Witness No. 3 Amraji
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/979/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/02/2025
undefined
Govaji Thakore at Exh: 11 and this witness is the eye witness, who as per
the case of the prosecution, was present at the time of incident. The
witness has supported the case of the prosecution and has deposed as per
the complaint.
During the cross-examination by the learned advocate for the
accused, the witness has stated that his house is very near to the bus stand
and he was going to the bus stand as he wanted to go to Kadi. That when
he reached the place, a verbal altercation was going on and there were a
number of persons were present and he intervened and sent them away.
That the Gram Panchayat has constructed a water tank and his son Rajuji
had earlier constructed a Kacha shed and was residing at the same place.
That his son filed an application for a house in Din Dayal Scheme and the
accused had not constructed the ceiling of the house of his son.
9.3 The prosecution has examined Prosecution Witness No. 4 Madarji
Laxmanji Thakore at Exh: 12 and this witness is the eye-witness and the
panch witness of the arrest panchnama of the accused, which is produced
at Exh. 50. The witness has stated that, a verbal altercation had taken
place between the complainant and the accused and the accused was
abusing the complainant but when he reached the place of incident,
everything was over and he had affixed his signature on the panchnama
produced at Exh.10, which was the panchnama of place of offence.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/979/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/02/2025
undefined
During the cross-examination by the learned advocate for the
accused, the witness has stated that the incident lasted for five minutes
and thereafter, every one went away and eight to ten persons were present
at that time. That when Amraji Govaji came, the accused had gone away.
9.4 The prosecution has examined Prosecution Witness No. 5
Ranjanben Govindbhai Parmar at Exh: 16 and the witness is wife of the
complainant and this witness has supported the case of the prosecution.
During the cross examination by the learned advocate for the
accused, the witness has stated that five to six persons were present at the
time of the incident, and the accused had assaulted her husband on the
stomach and on the chest. That Amraji Govaji was known to her prior to
the incident.
9.5 The prosecution has examined Prosecution Witness No. 6
Jayantilal Karmanbhai Vachhani at Exh:17 and the witness is the
Investigating Officer who has investigated the offence and has narrated
all the procedure undertaken during the investigation.
During the cross-examination by the learned advocate for the
accused, the witness has stated that the incident had taken place as the
complainant has to take some money from the accused but he had not
inquired whether any amount was outstanding from the panchayat. That
he had recorded the statement of Ashaben - Talati of Dhodiya Gram
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/979/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/02/2025
undefined
Panchayat and she had produced some vouchers. That, the complainant
had to take an amount of Rs.1,25,000/- from the panchayat but he has not
inquired, as to whether, the amount was actually due from the panchayat.
That, he has not inquired, as to whether, the complainant is actually a
member of the scheduled caste or scheduled tribe.
9.6 The prosecution has examined Prosecution Witness No. 7 Dr.
Rohitkumar Vasudev Patel at Exh. 27 and the witness the medical officer,
who has examined and treated the complainant on 06/02/2007, when he
was on duty at Community Health Center, Kadi. The complainant
Govindbhai Hamirbhai Parmar (Harijan-Chamar) came for treatment on
11:00 am and he had given the history of physical assaulted on
05/02/2007 at 10:00 am. The complainant was conscious oriented and
cooperative and following injuries were found on his body on
examination.
Multiple small abrasions on the left lower thigh with a dry bluish-red
scab present; one of them measures 3 cm × 0.5 cm.
Pain in the mid-chest with no swelling, no marks, and no tenderness.
Pain in the upper abdomen with no swelling, no marks, and no
tenderness.
Pain in the occipital region of the scalp with no swelling, no marks, and
no tenderness.
A bluish-red abrasion on the left upper thigh with surrounding skin
appearing bluish; a dry bluish-red scab is present, measuring 1 cm × 1
cm.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/979/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/02/2025
undefined
The injuries were caused by hard and blunt object and would heal within
two and three days. The witness has produced the medical certificate at
Exh.28.
During the cross-examination of the learned advocate for the
accused, the witness has stated that patient came without police Yadi and
injury Nos. 1 and 5 were normal injuries and injury Nos. 2 to 4 did not
have any marks. That, any injury would become reddish after two to
three days and the injuries on the complainant were two to three days
old. That if a person, doing labour work of Mason falls on bricks , he
would sustain the same type of injuries.
10. On minute dissection of the entire evidence of the prosecution, as
per the case of the prosecution, the incident has occurred on the Dhodiya
Bus stand and at that time, many people were present but the prosecution
has not examined any independent witness. The witnesses that have
been examined, did not specifically say whether any caste-slur words
were used and the complainant has gone for the medical treatment on the
next day but he has not named the person, who has assaulted him before
the medical officer. It appears that the Investigating Officer has not
investigated about the caste of the complainant and the caste certificate is
merely produced by the complainant during his deposition and no
witnesses have been examined for the caste certificate. In the absence of
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/979/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/02/2025
undefined
any independent corroboration by any person and in the absence of any
evidence as to whether the amount of Rs.1,25,000/-, which was the
genesis of the incident on record, it can be said that there is no iota of
evidence that incident has occurred on the date and time as mentioned by
the complainant.
11. In view of the settled position of law in the decisions of
Chandrappa (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 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.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/979/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/02/2025
undefined
12. The impugned judgement and order of acquittal passed by the
learned Special (ATRO) Judge, Mehsana in Special (ATRO) Case No. 36
of 2007 on 22-11-2007, is hereby confirmed.
13. Bail bond stands cancelled. Record and proceedings be sent back
to the concerned Trial Court forthwith.
Sd/-
(S. V. PINTO,J)
VVM
