Gujarat High Court

State Of Gujarat vs Ramjibhai Vaktabhai Asi on 19 July, 2025

                                                                                                                    NEUTRAL CITATION




                            R/CR.A/1577/2011                                       JUDGMENT DATED: 19/07/2025

                                                                                                                    undefined




                                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                                               R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1577 of 2011

                       FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

                       HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D. M. VYAS

                       ==========================================================

                                    Approved for Reporting                        Yes           No

                       ==========================================================
                                                       STATE OF GUJARAT
                                                             Versus
                                                 RAMJIBHAI VAKTABHAI ASI & ORS.
                       ==========================================================
                       Appearance:
                       MS KRINA CALLA, APP for the Appellant(s) No. 1
                       ABATED for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1
                       MR YN RAVANI(718) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 2,3,4
                       ==========================================================

                          CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D. M. VYAS

                                                              Date : 19/07/2025

                                                              ORAL JUDGMENT

1. This is an appeal preferred by the appellant-State of

Gujarat under Section 378(1)(3) of the Criminal Procedure

Code, 1973 against the judgment and order dated 05/09/2011

passed by learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc)

Ahmedabad (Rural) at Viramgam in Criminal Appeal No.6 of

2011 whereby the appeal of the appellant-State of Gujarat has

been dismissed by the appellate court confirming the acquittal

judgment dated 16/05/2011 passed by the learned Judicial

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1577/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/07/2025

undefined

Magistrate First Class, Viramgam in Criminal Case No.1226

of 2000 acquitting the respondents-accused for the offences

punishable under Sections 224, 225(a) and 177 of the Indian

Penal Code.

2. The prosecution case may briefly be stated as follows:

2.1. On 10/01/2000, at about 6:45 hours, the accused persons

were given custody of accused Taj Mohmed @ Tajio Allarakha

and Rasulbhai Habibbhai from Sabarmati Central Jail,

Ahmedabad for producing them before Judicial Magistrate

First Class, Morbi in connection with the offence being C.R.

No.I-68 of 1999 registered before Tankara Police Station in

Government vehicle P-85 bearing registration No.GJ-1-G-2652

and while they were returning from Morbi, as per case of the

prosecution, at about 21:30 hours at night, the accused

persons were taken at house of sister of Taj Mohmed without

handcuff and from that place, accused Taj Mohmed ran away

from the custody of the respondents accused. Therefore,

accused no.1 Ramjibhai Vaktaji lodged false complaint before

Sanand Police Station stating the fact that while they were

returning from Morbi and passing through Sanand, at about

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1577/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/07/2025

undefined

23:10 hours, accused Taj Mohmed @ Tajio Allarakha asked to

stop vehicle on the ground of attending nature's call and

accordingly they stopped vehicle and accused Taj Mohmed @

Tajio Allarakha and Rasulbhai Habibbhai had gone for

attending nature's call and at that time accused Taj Mohmed

@ Tajio Allarakha ran away from the custody of the

respondents accused and therefore, complaint was filed

before Viramgam Town Police Station which was registered as

C.R.No.I-82 of 2000 for the offences punishable under

Sections 224, 225(a) and 177 of the Indian Penal Code.

2.2. During the investigation, police recorded statements of

witnesses, drawn necessary panchnama and as there was

sufficient evidence connecting respondents-accused, charge

sheet was filed before the court of learned Judicial Magistrate

First Class, Viramgam which was numbered as Criminal Case

No.1226 of 2000.

2.3. To prove the case against the present respondents-

accused, the prosecution got examined PW-1 to PW-11

witnesses and got marked 12 documentary evidences.

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1577/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/07/2025

undefined

2.4. At the end of trial, after recording the statement of the

accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., and hearing arguments

on behalf of prosecution and the defence, the learned Judicial

Magistrate First Class, Viramgam, by his judgment and order

of acquittal dated 16/05/2011, acquitted the respondents-

accused for the alleged offences punishable under Sections

224, 225(a) and 177 of the Indian Penal Case in Criminal Case

No.1226 of 2000.

2.5. Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and order of the

learned magistrate court, the State of Gujarat has filed

Criminal Appeal No.6 of 2011 before the learned 3 rd

Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc), Ahmedabad (Rural) at

Viramgam whereby vide judgment and order dated

05/09/2011, the learned 3 rd Additional Sessions Judge

(Adhoc), Ahmedabad (Rural) has rejected the appeal of the

appellant-State and confirmed the judgment of the learned

magistrate court of acquitting the respondents accused and

hence, aggrieved by the order of the learned appellate court,

present appellant-State of Gujarat has filed present appeal

challenging the legality and validity of the impugned

judgment and order.

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1577/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/07/2025

undefined

3. Heard learned APP Ms. Krina Calla for the appellant-

State of Gujarat and learned advocate Mr. Y. N. Ravani for

respondent nos.2 to 4. As per the order dated 22/03/2022

passed by this Court in Criminal Misc. Application No.1 of

2021 in Criminal Appeal No.1577 of 2011, present appeal

stands abated qua respondent no.1.

4. Learned APP for the appellant-State submitted that the

appellate court has erred in considering the evidence of the

prosecution as well as erred in holding that the prosecution

has miserably failed to establish guilt of the accused. She

further submitted that the learned appellate court has not

properly appreciated the evidence of witness Rasulbhai

Habibhai Manek who is examined at Exh.17 which is fully

supported the prosecution case and thereby committed grave

error in confirming the order of acquittal of the learned

magistrate court and lastly prayed to quash and set aside the

impugned order of the appellate court.

5. Learned advocate for respondent nos.2 to 4 submitted at

length facts of the case and provisions of law and vehemently

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1577/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/07/2025

undefined

argued that the second appeal is not maintainable. He

submitted that the prosecution has not obtained sanction to

prosecute the respondents-accused under the provisions of

Section 197 of the Criminal Procedure Code. He submitted

that the prosecution has not complied with the provisions of

law and the present appeal is not maintainable under the eye

of law. Learned advocate for respondent nos.2 to 4 further

submitted that the learned magistrate court has deeply

scrutinized the prosecution evidence and recorded reasons

and acquitted the accused of the said charges. He submitted

that the appellate court re-appreciated the prosecution

evidence and confirmed the judgment of learned trial court.

He therefore, vehemently argued that the concurrent finding

of both the courts is not required to be interfered in this

appeal and prayed to dismiss the present appeal.

6. This Court has minutely perused the oral as well as the

documentary evidence available on record and gone through

the impugned judgment and order of the appellate court as

well as the order of the trial court and the paper book in its

entirety and has also considered the submissions made by

learned APP for the appellant-State and learned advocate for

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1577/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/07/2025

undefined

the respondents.

7. Considering the facts of the subject matter as well as the

concurrent finding recorded by the courts below and the

provisions of law, no any illegality or perversity is found in the

judgments of the trial court and the appellate court and,

hence, the same is not required to be interfered.

8. The appellate has miserably failed to prove the charges

against the respondents-accused. Not only that the appellant

has failed to establish any error of facts or any substantial

question of law in both the judgments of the courts below.

9. Under the circumstances, it appears that the learned

magistrate court after appreciating the evidence, recorded

the finding and thereafter the appellate court also re-

appreciated the prosecution evidence and confirmed the

judgment of acquittal and hence the same is not required to

be interfered.

10. At the outset, it is required to be noted that the

principles which would govern and regulate the hearing of

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1577/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/07/2025

undefined

appeal by this Court against an order of acquittal passed by

the trial Court, have been very succinctly explained by the

Apex Court in a catena of decisions. In the case of M.S.

Narayana Menon @ Mani Vs. State of Kerala & Anr.,

(2006) 6 S.C.C. 39, the Apex Court has narrated the powers

of High Court in appeal against the order of acquittal. In

Paragraph-54 of the said decision, the Apex Court has

observed as under:

"54. In any event the High Court entertained an appeal treating to be an appeal against acquittal, it was in fact exercising the revisional jurisdiction. Even while exercising an appellate power against a judgment of acquittal, the High Court should have borne in mind the well-settled principles of law that where two view are possible, the appellate Court should not interfere with the finding of acquittal recorded by the Court below."

10.1. Further, in the case of Chandrappa Vs. State of

Karnataka, (2007) 4 S.C.C. 415, the Apex Court has laid

down the following principle;

"42. From the above decisions, in our considered view, the following general principles regarding powers of the appellate Court while dealing with an appeal against an order of acquittal emerge:

[1] An appellate Court has full power to review, re- appreciate and reconsider the evidence upon which the

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1577/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/07/2025

undefined

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 curtain extensive powers of an appellate Court in an appeal against acquittal. Such phraseologies are more in the nature of "flourishes of language" to emphasis 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 is 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."

10.2. Thus, it is a settled principle that while exercising

appellate power, even 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

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1577/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/07/2025

undefined

the trial Court.

10.3. In the case of State of Goa V. Sanjay Thakran & Anr.,

(2007) 3 S.C.C. 75, the Apex Court reiterated the powers of

the High Court in such cases. In Paragraph-16 of the said

decision, the Court observed as under;

"16. From the aforesaid decisions, it is apparent that while exercising the powers in appeal against the order of acquittal the Court of appeal would not ordinarily interfere with the order of acquittal unless the approach of the lower Court is vitiated by some manifest illegality and the conclusion arrived at would not be arrived at by any reasonable person and, therefore, the decision is to be characterized as perverse. Merely because two views are possible, the Court of appeal would not take the view which would upset the judgment delivered by the Court below. However, the appellate Court has a power to review the evidence if it is of the view that the conclusion arrived at by the Court below is perverse and the Court has committed a manifest error of law and ignored the material evidence on record. A duty is cast upon the appellate Court, in such circumstances, to re- appreciate the evidence to arrive to a just decision on the basis of material placed on record to find out whether any of the accused is connected with the commission of the crime he is charged with."

10.4. Similar principle has been laid down by the Apex Court

in the cases of State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Ram Veer Singh

& Ors, 2007 A.I.R. S.C.W. 5553 and in Girja Prasad

(Dead) by LRs Vs. State of MP reported in 2007 A.I.R.

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1577/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/07/2025

undefined

S.C.W. 5589. Thus, the powers, which this Court may

exercise against an order of acquittal, are well settled.

10.5. It is also a settled legal position that in acquittal appeal,

the appellate Court is not required to re-write the judgment or

to give fresh reasonings, when the reasons assigned by the

Court below are found to be just and proper. Such principle is

laid down by the Apex Court in the case of State of

Karnataka Vs. Hemareddy reported in AIR 1981 S.C.

1417, wherein, it is held as under:

"... This Court has observed in Girija Nandini Devi V. Bigendra Nandini Chaudhary (1967)1 SCR 93: (AIR 1967 SC 1124) that it is not the duty of the appellate Court when it agrees with the view of the trial Court on the evidence to repeat the narration of the evidence or to reiterate the reasons given by the trial Court expression of general agreement with the reasons given by the Court the decision of which is under appeal, will ordinarily suffice."

10.6. Thus, in case the appellate Court agrees with the

reasons and the opinion given by the lower Court, then the

discussion of evidence is not necessary.

11. Considering the aforesaid reasoning and bearing in mind

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1577/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/07/2025

undefined

the statutory provisions as well as the judgments of the

Hon'ble Apex Court, this Court is of the considered opinion

that the present appeal does not warrant any interference in

the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned

appellate court. This Court finds that the findings recorded by