Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Arjanji Mavjiji Thakore on 20 February, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/726/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/02/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 726 of 2011
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE S.V. PINTO
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting No
==========================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
ARJANJI MAVJIJI THAKORE & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
Mr. Bhargav Pandya, APP for the Appellant(s) No. 1
BAILABLE WARRANT SERVED for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3
MR TUSHAR CHAUDHARY(5316) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No.
1,2,3
NOTICE SERVED for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 4
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE S.V. PINTO
Date : 20/02/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. The present present appeal is 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 Sessions Judge, Fast Track
Court, Deesa Camp at Deodar (hereinafter referred to as
"the learned Trial Court") in Special Case No. 142/2009 on
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/726/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/02/2025
undefined
22.12.2010, whereby, the learned Trial Court has acquitted
the respondents for the offence punishable under Sections
323, 504, 506(2) and 114 of IPC and Sections 3(1)(10) of
Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as "the
Atrocities Act").
1.1 The respondents are hereinafter referred to as "the
accused" 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 28.09.2008, the complainant - Narsinhbhai
Vahjibhai Parmar (Chamar) was at his home at around
07.30 pm and at that time, the accused came in their jeep
and parked the jeep on the road and came to his house and
hurled caste slurs on the complainant and told him to come
out of the house and said what had he gained by filing a
complaint against them and the accused no. 1 and Dashrat
Lagha kicked the complainant and caught him and tried to
drag him towards the jeep and threatened to kill him. That
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/726/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/02/2025
undefined
at that time, the complainant shouted and Malabhai
Tejabhai Mir of his village and his wife came running and
got him released from the hold of the accused. All the
accused thereafter, went away hurling caste abuses on the
complainant and told him that today he was saved and
abused him and went away. The complainant told his
brother - Jivabhai about the incident and took his brother
and went and filed the complaint at the Bhabhar Police
Station which was registered at II - C.R. No. 3105/2008 on
28.09.2008 under Sections 323, 504, 506(2) and 114 of IPC
and Section 3(1)(10) of the Atrocities Act.
2.2 The Investigating Officer recorded the statements of
the connected witnesses and seized the necessary
documents and after completion of investigation, a charge-
sheet came to be filed before the learned Judicial Magistrate
First Class, Deodar and as the said offences against the
accused were exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions,
the case was committed to the Sessions Court,
Banaskantha at Deodar as per the provisions of Section 209
of Code of Criminal Procedure and the case was registered
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/726/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/02/2025
undefined
as Special Case No. 142/2009.
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 and a charge at Exh. 3 was framed against the
accused and the statement of the accused were recorded at
Exhs. 4, 5 and 6, wherein, all the accused denied 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. No. PW Name of the witness Exh.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/726/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/02/2025
undefined
DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE
Sr. No. Particulars Exh.
2.5 After the learned APP filed the closing pursis at Exh.
38, 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 their behalf and stated
that a false case has been filed against them. After the
arguments of the learned APP and the learned advocate for
the accused were heard, the learned Trial Court by the
impugned judgement and order was pleased to acquit all the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/726/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/02/2025
undefined
accused from the charges levelled against them.
3. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgement
and order of acquittal, the appellant State has filed the
present appeal mainly stating that the learned Trial Court
has not considered the oral evidences of 9 witnesses and the
12 documentary evidences in proper perspective and has
erred in holding that the prosecution has failed to prove the
case beyond reasonable doubts. The complainant has fully
supported the case of the prosecution and the caste
certificate of the complainant is produced on record.
Moreover, the Medical Officer has also opined that the
injuries were possible due to kicks but the learned Trial
Court has not considered the same and even though there is
nothing on record that the incident has not occurred, the
learned Trial Court has disbelieved the case of the
prosecution. 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 respondents are improper, perverse and bad
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/726/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/02/2025
undefined
in law and hence, the impugned judgement and order must
be quashed and set aside.
4. Heard learned APP Mr. Bhargav Pandya for the
appellant State and learned advocate Mr. Tushar
Chaudhary for the respondents. 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 Mr. Bhargav Pandya has taken this Court
through the entire evidence of the prosecution on record of
the case and submitted that the complainant has fully
supported the facts of his complaint and the complaint has
been filed on the same day immediately after the incident.
The eye witness - Maljibhai Tejabhai has supported the case
of the prosecution and even the wife of the complainant who
was present, has stated that the accused used caste slurs
and assaulted the complainant but the learned Trial Court
has not believed the same. The impugned judgement and
order is perverse and learned APP has urged this Court to
quash and set aside the same and find the respondents
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/726/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/02/2025
undefined
guilty for the offences.
6. Learned advocate Mr. Tushar Chaudhary for the
respondents has submitted that the learned Trial Court has
appreciated all the evidences and has passed the impugned
judgement and order of acquittal which is just and proper
and no interference is required in the same. Learned
advocate for the respondents has urged this Court to reject
the appeal of the appellants.
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 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 Vs. State of M.P. (2006) 10 SCC 313, 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,
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/726/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/02/2025
undefined
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".
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
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/726/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/02/2025
undefined
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 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
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/726/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/02/2025
undefined
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
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 of the above settled principle of law, the
evidence of the prosecution is dissected and the
prosecution has examined PW1 - Narsinhbhai Vahjibhai
Parmar at Exh. 8. the witness is the complainant who has
fully supported the complaint and has stated that earlier,
the accused had assaulted his son and he had filed the
complaint on 05.09.2008 and another complaint was also
filed and the FIR is produced on record. The offences were
registered at Bhabhar Police Station II - C.R. No.
3096/2008 and Bhabhar Police Station I - C.R. No.
48/2008. The complainant has identified his signature on
the complaint produced at Exh. 9. During the cross-
examination by the learned advocate for the accused, the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/726/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/02/2025
undefined
witness has stated that he went to the hospital on the next
day at around 04.00 pm and he and the accused no. 1 had
a dispute regarding the truck as his truck was seized by the
police in Radhanpur and he thought that the truck was
seized because of the accused no. 1.
9.1 The prosecution has examined PW2 - Rameshbhai
Dahyabhai Thakor at Exh. 10 and PW3 - Ranchhodbhai
Ravjibhai Thakor at Exh. 12. Both the witnesses are the
panch witnesses of the panchnama of the place of offence
produced at Exh. 11 and both the witnesses have stated
that while they were passing on the road, the police had
called them and asked them to affix their signatures on the
panchnama and they have not gone to any place with the
police to draw any panchnama. The witnesses have not
supported the case of the prosecution and have been
declared hostile and during the cross-examination by the
learned APP, nothing to support the case of the prosecution
has come on record.
9.2 The prosecution has examined PW4 - Dr. Jayanand
Suleman Pandav at Exh. 20 and the witness is the Medical
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/726/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/02/2025
undefined
Officer who has treated the complainant on 20.09.2008 at
04.00 pm when the complainant come to CHC Bhabhar for
treatment with a police yadi. In the history, the
complainant had stated that he was assaulted on
28.09.2008 at about 07.30 pm with kicks by Arjanbhai and
others and on examination, he had complained of pain over
right lateral iliac region and over right lumber region but
there were no external marks of injury detected and no
tenderness was found. The witness has produced the
medical certificate at Exh. 22. During the cross-
examination by the learned advocate for the accused, the
witness has stated that the injury could be imaginary.
9.3 The prosecution has examined PW5 - Maljibhai
Tejabhai at Exh. 24 and the witness is an eye witness who
has supported the case of the complainant. During the
cross-examination by the learned advocate for the accused,
the witness has stated that he is doing the business of
sheep and goats at Barwala and the Thakor's of the village
had come to evict him from the village and from that time,
he does not have any relationship with the accused. That
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/726/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/02/2025
undefined
he had come to the Court with the complainant to give his
deposition and the police had read over the facts of the
incident to him.
9.4 The prosecution has examined PW6 - Ranjit
Narsinhbhai Parmar at Exh. 25 and the witness is the son
of the complainant who has not supported the case of the
prosecution. The witness has been declared hostile and has
been cross-examined by the learned APP but nothing to
support the case of the prosecution has come on record.
9.5 The prosecution has examined PW7 - Navinbhai
Jivabhai at Exh. 27 and the witness is the PSO who has
registered the complaint of the complainant.
9.6 The prosecution has examined PW8 - Hiraben
Narsinhbhai at Exh. 32 who is the wife of the complainant
and she has supported the case of the prosecution. During
the cross-examination by the learned advocate for the
accused, the witness has stated that her husband and the
accused no. 1 had a dispute about the truck since long and
there are no houses near their house as they are residing in
the field. That she and her husband were not pleased with
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/726/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/02/2025
undefined
the police as her son had filed a complaint but the police
did not do any procedure regarding the complaint. That her
husband and her brother-in-law had filed five to seven
complaints against the accused.
9.7 The prosecution has examined PW9 - Manojkumar
Vechatbhai Ozat at Exh. 34 and the witness is the
Investigating Officer who has narrated in detail the
procedure that was undertaken by him during investigation
of the offence. During the cross-examination by the learned
advocate for the accused, the witness has stated that
witness Ranjitbhai Narsinhbhai Parmar is the son of the
complainant and the complainant had stated that his son
Ranjit was present at the time of the incident. That during
investigation, he had only recorded the statements of the
family members of the complainant and no statements of
any neighbours were recorded. The witness has produced
the caste certificate of the complainant at Exh. 35.
10. On minute dissection of the entire evidence of the
prosecution, the infirmities in the evidence of the
prosecution have come on record and the incident has
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/726/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/02/2025
undefined
occurred on 28.09.208 at 19.30 hours at the house of the
complainant and the complainant had gone on the next
date i.e. on 29.08.2008 at 04.00 pm to the hospital. As per
the complainant, his son - PW6 - Ranjitbhai was present
but the son has not supported the case of the prosecution
even though he was an eye witness to the incident, has
been declared hostile. There is no medical evidence to
support the case of the prosecution and in the complaint
produced at Exh. 9, the complainant has not stated that he
was abused, whereas, the eye witness Maljibhai Tejabhai
states that the accused abused the complainant. The
evidence of PW5 - Maljibhai Tejabhai appears to be
exaggerated and there are major contradictions in the
evidence of the complainant and the eye witness. Moreover,
in the evidence of PW8 - Hiraben Narsinhbhai, it has come
on record that the complainant and his brother has filed
five to seven cases against the accused and it is also on
record that the complainant and the accused no. 1 were
having a dispute regarding the truck of the complainant
which was seized by the Radhanpur Police and the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/726/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/02/2025
undefined
complainant had a doubt that the truck was seized because
of the accused no. 1. Moreover, even though, the
complainant had filed the complaint on 28.09.2008 and
had named all the accused in the complaint, while taking
treatment before the Medical Officer, he had not named all
the accused.
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
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/726/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/02/2025
undefined
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.
12. The impugned judgement and order of acquittal
passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court,
Deesa Camp at Deodar in Special Case No. 142/2009 on
22.12.2010, is hereby confirmed.
13. Bail bond stands cancelled. Record and proceedings be
sent back to the concerned Trial Court forthwith.
(S. V. PINTO,J)
VASIM S. SAIYED
