Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Rajendrasinh @ Ranjitsinh Son on 20 February, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/934/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/02/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 934 of 2008
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE S.V. PINTO
================================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
NO
==========================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
RAJENDRASINH @ RANJITSINH SON & ORS.
================================================================
Appearance:
MS. JIRGA JHAVERI, APP for the Appellant(s) No. 1
DS AFF.NOT FILED (N) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 5
RULE SERVED for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3,4
================================================================
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 Additional
Sessions Judge, 2nd Fast Track Judge, Mahesana (hereinafter referred to
as "the learned Trial Court") in Special (ATRO) Case No. 44 of 2007 on
27.11.2007, whereby, the learned Trial Court has acquitted the
respondents for the offence punishable under Sections 504, 506(2) and
114 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereafter referred to as "IPC" for short)
and Section 3(1)(10) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as "Atrocities
Act").
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/934/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/02/2025
undefined
1.1 The respondents are 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 on 27th March 2007 at around 07:00 hours in Sanjay Nagar
Society, Ucharpi Road, Mahesana, the complainant scolded the accused
as they had burnt the hedge, which belonged to the complainant at 05:00
hours and the accused hurled cast abuses on the complainant and
threatened to kill him and abused him, and hence the complainant filed
the complaint on 27th March 2007 at Mehsana Police Station under
Sections 504, 506(2) and 114 of the IPC and Section 3(1)(10) of the
Atrocities Act, which was registered at II -C.R.No. 189 of 2007 on 27 th
March, 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 Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Mahesana and as the said offences against the
accused was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the case was
committed to the Sessions Court, Mahesana as per the provisions of
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/934/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/02/2025
undefined
Section 209 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and case was registered
Special (ATRO) Case No. 44 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 and a charge at Exh. 2 was framed
against the accused and the statements of the accused were recorded at
Exh. 3 to 6, 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/934/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/02/2025
undefined
6. LC of accused 17 & 18
2.5 After the learned Additional Public Prosecutor filed the closing
pursis at Exh. 19, 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 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 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
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/934/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/02/2025
undefined
have supported the case of the prosecution and during cross-examination,
nothing adverse has been elicited in favour of the respondents. The case
has been proved beyond reasonable doubts 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 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.
Though served, none appears on behalf of the respondent(s) either in
person or through an advocate. 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 proved that the complainant was a
member of the Scheduled Caste and the accused had earlier burnt the
hedge which belonged to the complainant and as the complainant went to
scold the accused, they all got together and abused and threatened the
complainant and also used caste-slurs against him. The prosecution has
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/934/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/02/2025
undefined
produced on record the evidence of the family members of the
complainant i.e. the wife and daughter of the complainant but the learned
trial Court has not appreciated the same and has passed the impugned
judgment and order of acquittal, which is contrary to the evidence on
record. Learned APP has urged this Court that the impugned judgement
and order is improper, perverse and bad in law and is required to be
quashed and set aside.
6. 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 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;
(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
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/934/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/02/2025
undefined
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.
7. 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
appreciate the evidence by the Appellate Court but if after re
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/934/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/02/2025
undefined
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.
8. 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
Bhogilal Bhikhabhai Parmar at Exh. 8 and the witness is the
complainant, who has fully supported the facts of the complaint, which is
produced at Exh. 9.
During the cross examination of the learned advocate for the
accused, the witness has stated that he and the complainant reside in the
same society and at the time when the hedge was burnt, he was not at
home. That his brother Jivanbhai Bhikhabhai working the Police
Department in Mehsana City Police Station. At the time of the incident,
Swachchhta Abhiyan was undertaken and his wife Vimlaben had filed
the complaint under the Atrocities Act against the accused No.1 and
Kishanbhai on 01/01/2006.
8.1 The prosecution has examined Prosecution Witness No. 2 -
Rameshchandra Kishorilal Nai at Exh. 10 and Prosecution Witness No. 3
- Ramaji Bachuji Thakore at Exh.13. Both the witnesses are the panch-
witness of the panchnama of the place of offence produced at Exh.11 and
the arrest panchnama produced at Exh. 12, whereby the accused were
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/934/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/02/2025
undefined
arrested. Both the witnesses have stated that, on 27/03/2007, while they
were in the market, the police had called them and asked them to affix
their signatures on the panchnamas produced at Exhs. 11 and 12. That
they do not know about the details of the panchnama . Both the witnesses
have not supported the case of the prosecution and have been declared
hostile and during cross examination at length by the learned Additional
Public Prosecutor nothing to support the case of the prosecution has
come on record.
8.2 The prosecution has examined Prosecution Witness No. 4 -
Vimlaben Bhogilal Parmar at Exh. 14 and the witness is the wife of the
complainant who has supported the case of the prosecution.
During the cross examination by the learned advocate for the
accused, the witness has stated that the accused are residing in the houses
just behind their houses and in the same society and they have frequent
fight with the accused and she had also come to depose on oath earlier.
The complainant was her husband and and she had filed a complaint
under the Atrocities Act on 01/01/2006 against the accused No. 1 and
Kishan Rambhai Sindhi. That the accused No. 1 had also filed the
complaint against her husband and her brother-in-law Jivanlal and the
trial of both the cases are pending. That in the case filed by her on
01/01/2006 under the Atrocities Act, the trial was concluded and the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/934/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/02/2025
undefined
accused were acquitted from the offences. That, the year 2007 was
declared by the Gujarat government as Nirmal Gujarat and all the
institution were working towards cleaning the premises of all the offices.
8.3 The prosecution has examined Prosecution Witness No. 5
Priyankaben Bhogilal Parmar at Exh. 15 and the witness is the daughter
of the complainant, who has fully supported the case of the prosecution.
During the cross-examination by the learned advocate of the
accused, the witness has stated that the accused and they reside in the
same society.
8.4 The prosecution has examined Prosecution Witness No. 6
Natvarsinh Dhirubha Zala at Exh.16. This witness has recorded the
complaint of the complainant, which is produced at Exh.9.
8.5 The prosecution has examined Prosecution Witness No. 7
Jayantilal Garmanbhai Vachhaniya at Exh.18 and the witness is the
Investigating Officer who has investigated the offence and has narrated
in detail about the procedure that was done by him during investigation.
During the cross-examination by the learned advocate for the
accused, the witness has stated that the hedge was in the open and the
complainant had mentioned the names of the witnesses in the complaint.
9. On minute dissection of the entire evidence of the prosecution, the
infirmities in the evidence have come on record and there is no iota of
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/934/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/02/2025
undefined
evidence that the offence has taken place. The prosecution has examined
only the wife and daughter of the complainant and the incident has
occurred in the residential area but no independent witnesses have been
examined. It has emerged on record that disputes were existing between
the complainant and the accused and the accused No. 1 has filed the
complaint on the complainant and his brother and the wife of the
complainant had filed a case under the Atrocities Act against the accused
No. 1 and one Kishanbhai and they have been acquitted by the learned
trial Court.
Moreover, the incident has occurred on 24/03/2007 but the
complaint is filed on 27/03/2007 and there is no explanation regarding
the delay in filing the complaint. If the complaint and the deposition of
the complainant and the witnesses are perused, the words that are alleged
to have been used by the accused are different and it is on record that the
accused are residing in a house situated behind the house of the
complainant, which is a private place of the complainant. There are no
independent witnesses to support the case of the prosecution and as the
existing enmity has come on record, the view taken by the learned trial
Court is a plausible one.
10. In view of the settled position of law in the decisions of
Chandrappa (supra) and Sri Dattatraya (supra), the learned trial Court has
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/934/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/02/2025
undefined
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.
11. The impugned judgement and order of acquittal passed by the
learned Additional Sessions Judge, 2nd Fast Track Judge, Mahesana in
Special (ATRO) Case No. 44 of 2007 on 27.11.2007, is hereby
confirmed.
12. Bail bond stands cancelled. Record and proceedings be sent back to
the concerned Trial Court forthwith.
Sd/-
(S. V. PINTO,J)
VVM
