Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Shardulbhai Ghughabhai on 22 July, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/545/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/07/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 545 of 2013
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE S.V. PINTO
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting No
==========================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
SHARDULBHAI GHUGHABHAI & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS. C.M. SHAH, APP for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR RAJESH K KANANI(2157) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 2,3,4
UNSERVED EXPIRED (R) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE S.V. PINTO
Date : 22/07/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. The 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 Special Judge, Surendranagar at Limbdi
(hereinafter referred to as "the learned Trial Court") in
Special (Atrocity) Case No. 5/2012 [(Old) Special Atrocity
Case No. 21/2009] on 30.10.2012, whereby, the learned
Trial Court has acquitted the respondents extending benefit
of doubt for the offence punishable under Section 506(2) of
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/545/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/07/2025
undefined
Indian Penal Code, Sections 183 and 184 of the Gujarat
Panchayat Act and Section 3(1)(10) of Schedule Caste and
Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989
(hereinafter referred to as "the Atrocity Act" for short).
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 On 28.09.2008, at around 12.00 hours in the
afternoon, the complainant - Valiben wife Ramjibhai
Dayabhai Makwana had gone to her field situated in the
outskirts of Thoriyali village on the road from Sayla to
Sudamda, near the field of Rayyabhai Gandubhai and at
that time, the accused had left their cattle into the standing
sesame crop growing in the field of the complainant. The
complainant told them to remove the cattle from the field
but they abused her and hurled caste slurs and threatened
to break her legs. That as she was old and feeble, she came
back home and later on, when she went back to the field,
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/545/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/07/2025
undefined
she saw the accused with their cattle in the field. The
complainant filed the complaint at the Sayla Police Station
under Sections 506(2) of the Indian Penal Code, Sections
183 and 184 of the Gujarat Panchayat Act and Sections 3(1)
(10) and 3(1)(5) of the Atrocities Act which was registered at
Sayla Police Station II - C.R. No. 3131/2008.
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 Court of the Judicial
Magistrate First Class, Sayla and as the said offences
against the accused were exclusively triable by the Court of
Sessions, the case was committed to the Sessions Court,
Surendranagar at Limbdi as per the provisions of Section
209 of Code of Criminal Procedure and the case was
registered as Special (Atrocity Case) No. 21/2009 which
came to be renumbered as Special (Atrocity) Case No.
5/2012.
2.3 The accused were duly served with the summons and
the accused appeared before the learned Trial Court and it
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/545/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/07/2025
undefined
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. 9 was framed against the
accused and the statements of the accused were recorded at
Exhs. 10, 11, 12 and 13 wherein, the accused denied the
contents of the charge and the entire evidence of the
prosecution was taken on record.
2.4 The prosecution examined 5 witnesses and produced
14 documentary evidences on record in support of their
case and after the learned Additional Public Prosecutor filed
the closing pursis, the further statement of the accused
under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
was recorded and 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 judgement and order was pleased to acquit all the
accused from the charges levelled against them.
3. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said
judgment and order of acquittal, the appellant - State has
filed the present appeal mainly stating that the impugned
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/545/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/07/2025
undefined
judgment 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 favor of the respondents. The case has been
proved beyond reasonable doubt and the prosecution has
successfully established the case against the respondents
and the judgment and order of acquittal is unwarranted,
illegal, and without any basis in the eyes of the 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. C.M. Shah for the appellant
State and learned advocate Mr. Rajesh Kanani 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.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/545/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/07/2025
undefined
5. Learned APP Ms. C.M. Shah 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. The impugned
judgement and order is perverse and learned APP has urged
this Court to quash and set aside the same and find the
respondent guilty for the offences.
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 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, 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
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/545/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/07/2025
undefined
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
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.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/545/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/07/2025
undefined
(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 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
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/545/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/07/2025
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.
8. In light of the above settled principle of law, the
evidence of the prosecution is dissected and the
prosecution has examined PW1 - Hiteshbhai Mavjibhai
Vaghela at Exh. 16 and the witness is the panch witness of
the panchnama of the place of offence which is produced at
Exh. 17. The witness has supported the case of the
prosecution but he has stated that the complainant Valiben
Ramjibhai is his grandmother and his grandmother had
called him to be a panch witness.
8.1 The prosecution has examined PW2 - Valiben w/o
Ramabhai Makwana at Exh. 22 and the witness is the
complainant who has narrated the facts as stated in the
complaint which is produced at Exh. 23. The witness has
produced a caste certificate at Exh. 24. In the cross-
examination by the learned advocate for the accused, the
witness has admitted that there are civil disputes regarding
the land with the accused no. 2, pending before the Court
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/545/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/07/2025
undefined
at Sayla and Regular Civil Suit No. 41 of 2008 has been
filed and there is an injunction in favour of the accused and
they are restrained from entering into the land. The
complainant has also admitted that there are deer and
bluebulls roaming around in the outskirts and they enter
the fields and damage the crops. Moreover, the witness has
also admitted that the field has not been handed over to
them by the government after marking the same by metes
and bounds and when she went to the Police Station to file
the complaint, her husband was with her, and her husband
had narrated the fact to the police and accordingly the
police had recorded the complaint. In the complaint, she
has not stated the extent of damage caused to the sesame
crop.
8.2 The prosecution has examined PW3 - Ramjibhai
Dayabhai Makwana at Exh. 27 and the witness is the
husband of the complainant and is not an eyewitness to the
incident. The witness has stated that the incident has
occurred on 29.09.2008 and he had gone to Navagam Naika
village as there was a death and he returned late in the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/545/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/07/2025
undefined
evening and his wife told him about the incident. He went
to the Police Station but the PSI was not present and he
went to the Police Station on the next day. During the
cross-examination by the learned advocate for the accused,
the witness has stated that he has no documentary
evidence to show that the place where the incident has
occurred is land in his possession and ownership and he
did not give any evidence regarding the land to the police at
the time of filing the complaint. There is a dispute between
him and the members of the Rabari community as his son
was murdered and when he went to the Sayla Police
Station, he did not give any complaint in writing at the
Police Station. The witness has also admitted that deer and
bluebulls enter into the fields and cause damage to the
standing crops.
8.3 PW4 - Kamlaben Gordhanbhai Makwana examined at
Exh. 28 is the daughter-in-law of the complainant but she
too is not an eyewitness to the incident and she has stated
that she did not go to the field but came to know about the
incident from the complainant.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/545/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/07/2025
undefined
8.4 PW5 - R.J. Pargi examined at Exh. 29 is the
Investigating Officer who has narrated in detail the entire
procedure undertaken by him during investigation. During
the cross-examination by the learned advocate for the
accused, the witness has stated that the complaint did not
mention the extent of damage that was caused to the
standing sesame seeds crop and the details as to when the
crop was sown is not mentioned in the panchnama. That no
statements of the persons working in the neighbouring
fields have been recorded and the statement of the Talati, to
show that the land where the incident occurred, belonged
to the complainant has not been recorded. That only the
husband and the daughter-in-law have been examined as
witnesses.
9. On minute appreciation of the entire evidence of the
prosecution, there are no eyewitnesses to the incident and
besides the deposition of the complainant who has stated
that she had gone to the field, there are no other witnesses
who have seen the complainant at the place of incident.
There are major contradictions regarding the caste slurs
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/545/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/07/2025
undefined
alleged to have been used by the accused in the complaint
and the deposition of the complainant and admittedly, the
place of offence is a private field and is not a public place.
There is no iota of evidence to show that the place of offence
i.e. the field, where the alleged incident has taken place,
belonged to the complainant and the complainant has
admitted that Regular Civil Suit No. 41 of 2008 is pending
before the Court of the Principal Civil Judge Sayla and an
injunction order restraining the complainant from entering
into the field has been passed. As far as the caste certificate
of the complainant produced at Exh. 24 is concerned, the
caste certificate has been produced on record but no
investigation regarding this certificate has been done by the
Investigating Officer and it is not proved as to whether the
caste certificate was actually of the complainant and that it
was issued by the Competent Authority for the
complainant. Even otherwise, the place where the alleged
incident has occurred is a private place and the incident
has not occurred in public view and all the evidence on
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/545/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/07/2025
undefined
record has been properly appreciated in detail by the
learned Trial Court.
10. 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/545/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/07/2025
undefined
11. The impugned judgement and order of acquittal
passed by the learned Special Judge, Surendranagar at
Limbdi in Special (Atrocity) Case No. 5/2012 [(Old) Special
Atrocity Case No. 21/2009] on 30.10.2012, 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)
VASIM S. SAIYED
