Gujarat High Court
Jeram @ Jerajbhai Karshanbhai vs State Of Gujarat on 25 February, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/481/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/02/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL (AGAINST ACQUITTAL) NO. 481 of 2024
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE S.V. PINTO
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
NO
==========================================================
JERAM @ JERAJBHAI KARSHANBHAI
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR MANOJ SHRIMALI(2331) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MS. JIRGA JHAVERI, APP for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE S.V. PINTO
Date : 25/02/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant- original complainant
under Section 14-A of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe
(Prevention of Atrocities), Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as Atrocities
Act) against the judgement and order of acquittal passed on 03/10/2023
by the learned Special Judge (ATRO) & 2nd Additional Sessions Judge,
Morbi (hereinafter referred to as "the learned Trial Court") in Special
(ATRO) Case No. 12 of 2016, whereby, the learned Trial Court has
acquitted the respondents for the offence punishable under Sections 323,
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/481/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/02/2025
undefined
504, 506(2) and 114 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ( hereinafter referred
to as the IPC) and Section 3(1)(r)(s), 3(2)(5-a) of the Atrocities Act .
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 the complainant Jerambhai @ Jerajbhai Karsanbhai
Parmar has filed the complaint on 26-02-2016 at 23:30 Hrs., stating that
at around 07:30 pm, on the same day, he was at the food grain shop of
Hasubhai Savjibhai Chotaliya in his village and at that time, the accused
No. 2 Ruksanaben D/o Valimohamad Salemanbhai Theba came and had
a verbal atercation with him and told him that he had purchased a stamp
paper of her name and had cheated her of Rs.3,00,000/- and abused him
and took her slipper and beat him on the head and the other accused Nos.
1 , 3 and 4 also abetted each other and threatened to kill him. The
complainant filed the complaint on 26-02-2016 at Morbi Taluka Police
Station under Sections 323, 504, 506(2) and 114 of the IPC and Sections
3(1)(r)(s), 3(2)(5-a) of the Atrocities Act, which was registered as II-
C.R.No.3084 of 2016.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/481/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/02/2025
undefined
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 Judicial
Magistrate First Class, Morbi and as the said offences against the
accused were exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the case was
committed to the Sessions Court, Morbi as per the provisions of Section
209 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and case was registered Special
(ATRO) Case No. 12 of 2016.
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. 7 was framed
against the accused and the statements of the accused were recorded at
Exhs. 8 to 10 respectively, 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.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/481/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/02/2025
undefined
ORAL EVIDENCE
Sr. P.W. Name of the witnesses Exh.
No. Nos
Parmar
DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE
Sr. Particulars Exh.
No.
5. Appointment order of Investigating Officer 54
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/481/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/02/2025
undefined
2.5 After the learned Additional Public Prosecutor filed the closing
pursis at Exh. 56, 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 - original complainant 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 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
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/481/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/02/2025
undefined
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 advocate Mr. Manoj Shrimali appearing for the
original complainant, learned APP Mr. Bhargav Pandya for the
respondent-State. Perused the impugned judgement and order of acquittal
and have reappreciated the entire evidence of the prosecution on record
of the case.
5. Learned advocate Mr. Manoj Shrimali for the original complainant
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 that the impugned judgement and order is improper,
perverse and bad in law and is required to be quashed and set aside.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/481/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/02/2025
undefined
6. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State 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 Additional Public
Prosecutor for the respondent-state has urged this court to reject the
appeal of the appellant. Learned APP has further submitted that as per the
communication dated 20-03-2024 of the Legal Department, the State has
decided not to challenge the impugned judgment and order of acquittal.
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/481/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/02/2025
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 presumption of innocence in favour of the
accused and it has finally culminated when a case ends in an acquittal.
That 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. That there is no
inhibition to re appreciate the evidence by the Appellate Court but if after
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/481/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/02/2025
undefined
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
Jerambhai @ Jerajbhai Karshanbhai Parmar at Exh. 13 and the witness is
the complainant, who has stated that the incident has occurred on 26-02-
2016 and he had gone to the food grain shop of Hasmukhbhai Savjibhai
Chotaliya and Shantilal Mistry, Daudbhai Milkhanbhai, Yunusbhai
Adbulbhai Rasulbhai Sulemanbhai, Tulsibhai Goswami, Vinodbhai
Bharwad and Chhaganbhai Arjanbhai were present with him. That, at
that time, the accused No. 2 came and told him that he had taken
Rs.3,00,000/- on a stamp and started assaulting him with her slipper and
abused him and the other accused also came and started shouting at him
and assaulting him. That they also threatened to kill him and thereafter
they left the place and went away. That he had filed the complaint which
is produced at Exh. 14 and his caste certificate is produced at Exh. 15.
During the cross-examination by the learned advocate for the
accused, the witness has stated that the house of the accused No. 2 is near
his house and the field of the accused is also near his field. That he had
purchased some stamp paper in the name of the accused No. 2 from a
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/481/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/02/2025
undefined
stamp vendor at Morbi Seva Sadan for Rs.100/- even though the accused
No. 2 did not instruct him to get the stamp paper in her name. That he
does not know what writing was done on the stamp paper and as it came
to the knowledge of the the accused No. 2 that he had purchased the
stamp without her consent, she had asked him that why he had purchased
the stamp paper in her name. That, Ratilal Bhanjibhai, Savjibhai
Tadsibhai, Bijalbhai Ranabhai, Chhaganbhai Arjanbhai and his wife had
gone to file the complaint and the police has recorded the statement of
the witnesses in the village.
9.1 The prosecution has examined Prosecution Witness No. 2
Hansaben Jerambhai Parmar at Exh: 18 and this witnesses is the wife of
the complainant, who has stated that she is not an eye witness to the
incident but in the evening she came to know from her husband that the
accused No. 2 had beaten her husband with her slipper two to three times
near the shop of Hasubhai. That the accused threatned to kill her husband
and has also used caste-slurs on her husband and after discussing with
her, her husband had decied to file police complaint. The reason for the
incident was that the accused No. 2 asked her husband why her husband
had purchased the stamp paper in her name. That they had decided to file
the complaint and went to Morbi Taluka Police Station where her
husband had filed the complaint.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/481/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/02/2025
undefined
During the cross-examination by the learned advocate for the
accused, the witness has stated that she was not present at the place of
incident and she does not know what had occurred and the complainant is
her husband.
9.2 The prosecution has examined Prosecution Witness No. 3
Chhaganbhai Arjanbhai Parmar at Exh: 19 and this witness has stated that
the incident had occurred on 26-02-2016 and as a commotion took
place , he ran to the shop of Hasubhai and saw the accused No. 2 hitting
his uncle Jerambhai with her slipper two to three times. That the accused
No. 3 was abusing his uncle and the accused Nos. 1 and 4 also came and
they had separated them. The incident occurred because of the stamp
paper of Rs.100/-and all the accused used caste-slurs against his uncle.
During the cross-examination by the learned advocate for the
accused, the witness has stated that he had come to the Court along with
his uncle for deposition and he knows the accused as they are from the
same village. That when the police came to record his statement, the
complainant was also present and there was a verbal altercation between
his uncle and the accused No.2.
9.3 The prosecution has examined Prosecution Witness No. 4
Ratilalbhai Bhanjibhai Parmar at Exh: 20 and this witness has stated that,
at the time of incidnet, he was at his home and as he heard a commottion
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/481/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/02/2025
undefined
outside he walked and went to the Chowk where there were many persons
present. That he took Jerambhai and came away and Jerambhai told him
that he wanted to go Morbi and he took Jerambhai to Morbi. That the
accused No. 2 hit her slipper on Jerambhai and beside this, he does not
know any other details. That they went to Morbi Taluka Police Station
where Jerambhai gave the complaint.
During the cross-examination by the learned advocate for the
accused, the witness has stated that when he went near the Chowk, after
hearing the commotion, he saw Jerambhai coming from the opposite
direction and he went back home. That he was not an eye witness to the
incident and as the village is a small village, every body is known to each
other.
9.4 The prosecution has examined Prosecution Witness No. 5
Daudbhai Milkhanbhai Rathod at Exh: 25 and as per the case of the
prosecution, the witness is an eye-witness to the incident but the witness
has stated that he knows the complainant and the accused but he does not
know any details about the complaint. The witness has not supported the
case of the prosecution and has been declared hostile and has been cross-
examined by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and nothing to
support the case of the prosecution, has come on record.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/481/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/02/2025
undefined
9.5 The prosecution has examined Prosecution Witness No. 6
Vashrambhai Tadsibhai Chotaliya at Exh. 27 and the witness is also an
eye-witness as per the case of the prosecution and the witness has stated
that 26- 02-2016 at around 07:00 pm, the accused No. 2 hit a slipper on
the complainant and used caste-slurs against him. That, when the accused
No.2 hit the complainant, he ran and at that time, the other accused came
and caught the complainant. That he does not know the reason for the
incident but as he was passing by, the accused were assaulting the
complainant. That they had come to the shop and while he was coming
out of the shop, they had assaulted him. The witness has not supported
the case of the prosecution and has been declared hostile and has been
cross-examined by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor at length, but
nothing to support the case of the prosecution has come on record.The
witness has also stated that he has problems in his eyes and he would be
able to identify the accused only from a close range.
During the cross examination by the learned advocate for the
accused, the witness has stated that the complainant and his wife had
accompanied him to the Court on the date of the incident and he has
problems in his eyes since last two years. That the complainant had stood
in the elections for the post of Sarpanch and the accused No. 2 had also
stood for the election. That his family daughter Harsidaben had married
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/481/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/02/2025
undefined
the son of the accused No.1 and he has good relation with the
complainant.
9.6 The prosecution has examined Prosecution Witness No. 7 Shantilal
Khimjibhai Badadkiya at Exh. 42 and as per the case of the prosecution,
the witness is an eye-witness to the incident but he has stated that he had
seen the complainant and the accused No.2 fighting with each other but
he did not hear anything and does not know what was the quarrel about.
The witness has been declared hostile and has been cross examined at
length by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor but nothing to support
the case of the prosecution has come on record.
9.7 The prosecution has examined Prosecution Witness No. 8
Yunusbhai Abdulbhai Kadiya at Exh. 43 and as per the case of the
prosecution the witness is an eye-witness but he has stated that at the time
of the incident, he had gone to the shop for purchasing something and he
does not know between whom was the fight taking place.The accused No.
2 is his uncle's daughter and the witness has been declared hostile and
has cross examined at length by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor
but nothing to support the case of the prosecution has come on record.
9.8 The prosecution has examined Prosecution Witness No. 9
Vinodbhai Machhabhai Bhudiya at Exh. 44 and the witness, as per the
case of the prosecution, is an eye-witness but he has not supported the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/481/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/02/2025
undefined
case of the prosecution and has categorically stated that there was a fight
between the complainant and the accused but he does not know anything
about the same. The witness has been declared hostile and has been cross
examined at length by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor but
nothing to support the case of the prosecution has come on record.
9.9 The prosecution has examined Prosecution Witness No. 10
Hasmukhbhai Savjibhai Chotaliya at Exh. 45 and the witness, as per the
case of the prosecution, is an eye-witness but he has stated that, at the
time of the incident, Rasulbhai, Yunusbhai Daudbhai and Jerambhai were
sitting and Rukshanaben, Izajbhai, Aminaben and Jusabhai came and they
had a fight and Rukshanaben took a slipper and assaulted Jerambhai.
During the cross examination by the learned advocate for the
accused, the witness has stated that he has good relations with the
complainant- Jerambhai for many years and he comes to the court on
every date with Jerambhai.
9.10 The prosecution has examined Prosecution Witness No. 11
Rajdeepsinh Narayansinh Zala at Exh. 53 and the witness is the
Investigating Officer, who has narrated in detail all the procedure that
was undertaken by him during the investigation.
During the cross-examination by the learned advocate for the
accused, the witness has stated stated that the complainant had discussed
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/481/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/02/2025
undefined
about filing the complaint at home and thereafter had filed the complaint
after a delay of about four hours and as the complainant discussed about
filing of the complaint, there was a possibilities that a false complaint can
be filed. That he has not investigated about the stamp paper of Rs.100/-,
which was produced by the complainant in the name of Rukshanaben.
10. On minute dissection of the entire evidence of the prosecution, as
per the case of the prosecution and as per the complaint, the incident had
occurred in front of the food grain shop of Hasubhai Savjibhai Chotaliya
and at that time, Shantilal Mistry, Daudbhai Milkhanbhai, Yunusbhai
Abdulabhai, Rasulbhai Sulemanbhai, Tulsibhai Gauswami, Vinodbhai
Bharwad and Chhaganbhai Arjanbhai were present and they are eye-
witnesses to the incident. Prosecution Witness No. 2 Hansaben
Jerambhai Parmar is the wife of the complainant Jerambhai Parmar but
she is not an eye-witness to the incident though she has stated that her
husband had told her about the incident when he came in the evening and
they discussed about the filing of the complaint and thereafter went to
Morbi Taluka Police Station to file complaint. The eye-witnesses
Prosecution Witness No. 5 Daudbhai Milkhanbhai Rathod, Prosecution
Witness No. 6 - Vasrambhai Tadsibhai Chotaliya, Prosecution Witness
No. 7 - Shantilal Khimjibhai Badadkiya, Prosecution Witness No. 8 -
Yunusbhai Abdulbhai Kadiya and Prosecution Witness No. 9 - Vinodbhai
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/481/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/02/2025
undefined
Machhabhai Bhudiya have all been declared hostile before the learned
trial Court and they have not supported thc case of the prosecution.
Prosecution Witness No. 3 - Chhaganbhai Arjanbhai Parmar is the
nephew of the complainant, who has stated that there was only a verbal
altercation between his uncle and the accused No. 2 and beside this,
nothing else has occurred. The incident has occurred at the shop of
Hasmukhbhai Savjibhai Chotaliya - Prosecution Witness No. 10 but
during the cross-examination, he has admitted that he has good relations
with the complainant. Admittedly, the incident has occurred as the
complainant purchased stamp of Rs.100/- in the name of the accused No.
2 and the accused No. 2 had inquired from him as to why he had
purchased a stamp paper of Rs.100/- in her name and he had taken
Rs.3,00,000/-. The Investigating Officer - Prosecution Witness No. 11
Rajdeepsinh Naransinh Zala has not investigated about this angle and
hence it has not come on record as to whether actually the stamp paper
was purchased by the complainant in the name of the accused No. 2
without her consent and instructions. The complainant himself has
admitted that he has purchased a Non Judicial stamp paper of Rs.100/-
without her consent and Rafik had written something on the stamp paper
but the stamp paper has not been seized by the Investigating Officer
during investigation. Besides the say of the complainant, there is nothing
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/481/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/02/2025
undefined
on record to suggest that the incident has occurred and it appears that the
complainant has made allegations that the accused No. 2 assaulted him
with the slippers but his nephew Prosecution Witness No. 3 Arjabhai
Chhaganbhai Parmar has stated that there was only a simple altercation
between his uncle and the accused No. 2. The complainant has not stated
exact words that were used by the accused and he has merely stated that
all the accused used caste-slurs, abused him and threatened to kill him
but it cannot be said that all the accused would use exactly the same
words or they would speak exactly at the same time to abuse or threaten
to kill the complainant. Moreover, the caste certificate of the complainant
has been produced in the deposition of the complainant and it appears
that the Investigating Officer has not investigated as to whether the
complainant is in fact, a member of the scheduled castes as stated by him
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
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/481/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/02/2025
undefined
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.
12. The impugned judgement and order of acquittal passed on
03/10/2023 by the learned Special Judge (ATRO) & 2 nd Additional
Sessions Judge, Morbi in Special (ATRO) Case No. 12 of 2016, 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
