Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Ahemadsha Mayudrin Diwan (Fakir) on 22 July, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1258/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/07/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1258 of 2012
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE S.V. PINTO Sd/-
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
No
==========================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
AHEMADSHA MAYUDRIN DIWAN (FAKIR) & ANR.
================================================================
Appearance:
MR.PRANAV DHAGAT, APP for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR.NISARG P RAVAL(7262) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1
SHAISHAV S PANDIT(7363) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE S.V. PINTO
Date : 22/07/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant State under Section 378
of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the judgement and order
of acquittal passed by learned Special Judge & 3 rd Additional Sessions
Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural) (hereinafter referred to as "the learned Trial
Court") in Special (ATRO) Case No. 04 of 2011 on 08.02.2012, whereby,
the learned Trial Court has acquitted the respondent for the offence
punishable under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled
Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities), Act, 1889. (hereinafter referred to as
the Atrocities Act).
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1258/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/07/2025
undefined
1.1 The respondent is hereinafter referred to as the accused as he 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 21-01-2011, at around 13.30 hours, the complainant Ramjibhai
Govindbhai Vaghela was in his field situated in the outskirts of Mandal
Village and the accused had a verbal altercation with the complainant
about the water pipeline that was to be taken from the field of the
complainant. The accused assaulted the complainant with a stick on his
forehead and abused the complainant and also hurled caste-slurs against
the complainant. The complainant filed the complaint at Mandal Police
Station under Sections 323 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860
(hereinafter referred to as the IPC) and Section 3 (1)(10) of the Scheduled
Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, which was
registered at Mandal Police Station II- C.R.No 1 of 2011.
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 Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Viramgam and as the said offences against the
accused were exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the case was
committed to the Sessions Court, Ahmedabad (Rural) as per the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1258/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/07/2025
undefined
provisions of Section 209 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and was
registered as Special (ATRO) Case No. 04 of 2011.
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. A charge at Exh. 6 was framed
against the accused and the statement of the accused was recorded at Exh.
7, 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 eight oral evidences and nine
documentary evidences to bring home charge against the accused and
after the learned Additional Public Prosecutor filed the closing pursis at
Exh. 30, the further statement of the accused under Section 313 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was recorded, wherein, the accused
denied all the evidence of the prosecution on record. 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 convict the accused for the offence under
sections 323, 504, 447 of the IPC and sentenced the accused to simple
imprisonment for six months and fine of Rs.1000/- (Rupees One
Thousand Only) and in default simple imprisonment for one month for
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1258/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/07/2025
undefined
the offence under Section 323 of the IPC and to simple imprisonment for
three months and fine of Rs.500/- (Rupees Five Hundred Only) and in
default simple imprisonment for fifteen days for the offence under
Sections 504 and 447 of the IPC. The learned trial Court was further
pleased to grant benefit of probation to the accused under Section 360 of
the Cr.P.C. on certain terms and conditions and was pleased to acquit the
accused from the charge under Section 3(1)(10) of the Atrocities Act.
3. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said judgement and order
of acquittal qua Section 3(1)(x) of the Atrocities Act, 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 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 respondents 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.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1258/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/07/2025
undefined
4. Heard learned APP Mr. Pranav Dhagat for the appellant - State,
learned advocate Mr. Nisarg P Raval for the respondent No. 1 and learned
advocate Mr. Shaishav Pandit for the respondent No.2. Perused the
impugned judgement and order of acquittal and have re appreciated the
entire evidence of the prosecution on record of the case.
5. Learned APP Mr. Pranav Dhagat and learned advocate Mr.
Shaishav Pandit for the respondent No. 2 have taken this Court through
the entire evidence of the prosecution on record of the case and submitted
that the judgment and order of acquittal is contrary to law and evidence
on record and the learned trial Court has not appreciated the direct and
indirect evidence in the case. The complainant has supported the case of
the prosecution and the witnesses have identified the accused before the
learned Trial Court. The prosecution has fully proved the case beyond
reasonable doubts but the learned trial Court has relied on minor
contradictions and has given undue weightage with regard to the place of
incident. That the order of acquittal qua the section of the Atrocities Act
passed by the learned Trial Court is illegal, improper and perverse and is
required to be quashed and set aside and the appeal of the appellant must
be allowed.
6. Learned advocate Mr. Nisarg P. Raval for the respondent No. 1
submits that the judgments and order has been passed after appreciation
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1258/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/07/2025
undefined
of all the evidence and the learned Court has appreciated the evidence in
proper perspective and hence, the appeal of the appellant-State must be
rejected.
7. The charge against the accused has been framed under Section 3
(1)(10) of the Atrocities Act along with other section of the IPC and by
the impugned judgment and order, the learned Trial Court has acquitted
the accused from the offence under section 3 (1)(10) of the Atrocities
Act. If the provision of Section 3 (1)(10) of the Atrocities Act is perused,
it reads as under:-
Section 3 :Punishments for offences atrocities (1) Whoever, not being
a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe,--
(i) xxx
(ii) xxx
(iii) xxx
(iv) xxx
(v) xxx
(vi) xxx
(vii) xxx
(viii) xxx
(ix) xxx
(x) "Whoever, not being a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled
Tribe, intentionally insults or intimidates with intent to humiliate a
member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe in any place within
public view, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which
shall not be less than six months but which may extend to five years and
with fine."
8. To prove the offence under Section 3 (1)(x) of the Atrocities Act,
the prosecution has to prove that the accused had used caste-abuses
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1258/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/07/2025
undefined
against a member of the scheduled caste with the intention of insulting or
humiliating him and the offence must be committed within the public
view.
9. To prove the charge, the complainant has been examined
Ramjibhai Govindbhai Vaghela as Prosecution Witness No. 2 at Exhibit
13 and he has stated the facts as narrated in the complaint which is
produced at Exhibit 14. The complainant has also produced his caste
certificate at Exhibit 15. Besides the complainant, the eyewitnesses are
Prosecution Witness No.6 Madhuben Ramjibhai Vaghela, who is the wife
of the complainant and Prosecution Witness No. 7 Bhojabhai Danabhai
who was working as a laborer in field of the complainant. If the entire
evidence of Prosecution Witness No.2 Ramjibhai Govindbhai Vaghla,
Prosecution Witness No.6 - Madhuben Ramjibhai Vaghela and
Prosecution Witness No.7 - Bhojabhai Danabhai Vaghela is perused, it
appears that the incident has occurred in the field, which is a private place
and there were no other persons around. There are many contradictions in
the depositions of all the witnesses and with regard to the hurling of caste
slurs, the wife of the complainant has stated that she had shouted and she
was far away from the complainant and before her, Prosecution Witness
No.7 - Bhojabhai Danabhai had reached the field. Prosecution Witness
No.7 - Bhojabhai Danabhai has stated that he is working as a labourer
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1258/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/07/2025
undefined
with the complainant for the past seven years and he has to depose as per
the say of the complainant and has stated the facts as told to him by the
complainant. While the incident was taking place, he was at a distance of
about half a field away and could not hear what was being said and the
fact that caste - slurs were hurled by the accused, is not supported by any
independent evidence.
10. The learned Trial Court has dealt with the provisions of Section 3
(1)(x) of the Atrocities Act and has also observed that the place where the
incident has occurred is a private place and is not a public place and there
were no other persons surrounding the place, where the alleged incident
has occurred. There is no independent evidence that the caste slurs used
by the accused were heard by anyone and the incident has not occurred
within public view. For the offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the
Atrocities Act, it is essential that the incident must have occurred within
public view and there is no iota of evidence that any such incident has
occurred and the learned Trial Court has rightly appreciated the evidence
and has passed the impugned judgment and order of acquittal qua the
offence under the Atrocities Act.
11. In view of the settled position of law, 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
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1258/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/07/2025
undefined
order of acquittal qua the charge of Atrocities Act. The learned trial Court
has appreciated all the evidence and this Court is of the considered
opinion that the learned trial was completely justified in acquitting the
accused of the charges under the Atrocities Act leveled against the
accused. 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 qua the
Atrocity Act 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 qua Section 3(1)
(10) of the Atrocities Act passed by learned Special Judge & 3 rd
Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural) in Special (ATRO) Case
No. 04 of 2011 on 08.02.2012 on 18.05.2012, 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
