Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Arjanbhai Ratnabhi Bharwad on 22 July, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/494/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/07/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 494 of 2012
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE S.V. PINTO Sd/-
================================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
√
================================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
ARJANBHAI RATNABHI BHARWAD
================================================================
Appearance:
MR PRANAV DHAGAT, APP for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR DEVANG VYAS(2794) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1
RULE SERVED for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1
================================================================
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(1)(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
(hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') against the judgment and the
order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge,
Surendranagar, Camp at Limbdi (hereinafter referred to as 'the
learned Appellate Court') in Criminal Appeal No.9 of 2010 on
27.01.2012, whereby, the learned Appellate Court has quashed and
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/494/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/07/2025
undefined
set aside the judgment and order passed by the learned Judicial
Magistrate Class, Muli, (hereinafter referred to as 'the learned Trial
Court), in Criminal Case No. 412 of 1999 on 18.01.2010, whereby,
the learned Trial Court convicted and sentenced the respondent -
original accused no. 1 to rigorous imprisonment of 18 months and
fine of Rs.10,000/-, and in default, simple imprisonment of 6
months for the offence punishable under Section 324 of the Indian
Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as 'the IPC').
1.1. The learned Trial Court was pleased to acquit the
accused no. 1 from the offences punishable under Sections 325,
506(2) of the IPC and section 135 of the B.P.Act and to acquit the
accused no. 2 from the offences punishable under Sections 324,
325, 506(2) of the IPC and section 135 of the B.P.Act. The learned
Trial Court was pleased to convict the respondent herein - accused
no. 1 only for the offence punishable under Section 324 of the IPC.
1.2. The respondent herein - accused no. 1 and the accused
no. 2 hereinafter referred to as 'the accused' as they stood in the
rank and file in the original case, for the sake of convenience,
clarity and brevity.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/494/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/07/2025
undefined
2. The relevant facts leading to filing of the present
appeal are as under:
2.1. On 28.08.1999, at around 16:00 hours, the complainant
Manjibhai Vajabhai Chuvaliya Koli was in his agricultural field
situated in the outskirts of village Nadadri, and at that time, the
accused came and assaulted the complainant with their sticks,
which had iron rings fixed at the end. Both the accused gave 8 to
10 blows to the complainant on his hands, legs and buttocks. The
complainant filed the complaint under sections 324, 325, 506(2)
and 114 of the IPC and Section 135 of the B.P.Act, which came to
be registered at I-C.R.No. 66 of 1999 with Muli Police Station. The
FIR has been filed at Exh.57, and as per the FIR, the complainant
and his wife were working in their field, and at around 4:30pm,
the accused came with their goats and their goats started grazing
in the field of the complainant, Jeetuben Manjibhai, the wife of the
complainant, told the accused to restrain their goats from grazing
in the fields, but the accused did not do so. The complainant went
to the place and the accused no. 1 gave a blow with the stick on his
right hand and the other accused also started assaulting the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/494/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/07/2025
undefined
complainant with the stick and the complainant fell down. The
complainant was given blows on his hands, legs and buttocks and
8 to 10 blows were given to him. His wife intervened and shouted,
and at that time, Rupa Dhara, Bhoja Singha and other persons of
the Bharwad community came and all of them together assaulted
the complainant. The other persons, who were working nearby
including Premabhai Ramabai and others came and intervened
and saved the complainant from further beatings. Originally, the
complaint was filed against 5 persons and after investigation, the
charge sheet came to be filed against the two accused only.
2.2. After registration of the FIR, the investigation was
carried out by the concerned Investigating Officer and after having
sufficient material against the accused, the charge sheet came to be
filed against the accused before the Court of Judicial Magistrate
First Class, Muli.
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
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/494/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/07/2025
undefined
charge was framed by the learned Trial Court at Exh.2 and the
statement of the accused was recorded, wherein, the accused
denied all the contents of the charge and the entire evidence of the
prosecution was taken on record. The prosecution examined 10
witnesses and produced 6 documentary evidences in support of
the case.
2.4. After the closing pursis was submitted by the learned
APP, the further statement of the accused under Section 313 of the
Code was recorded wherein the accused denied the evidence on
record. After hearing the arguments of the learned APP and
learned advocate for the accused and after perusing the
documents on record, the learned Trial Court, by the impugned
judgment and order dated 18.01.2010, was pleased to acquit
accused no. 2 for the offence under Sections 324, 325 and 506(2) of
the IPC and Section 135 of the B.P.Act and the accused no. 1 for the
offence under Sections 325 and 506(2) of the IPC and Section 135 of
the B.P.Act and convict and sentence only the accused no.1 to
simple imprisonment of 18 months and fine of Rs.10,000/-, and in
default, simple imprisonment of 6 months and the offence
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/494/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/07/2025
undefined
punishable under Section 324 of the IPC.
2.5. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned
judgment and order passed by the learned Trial Court, the accused
no.1 preferred Criminal Appeal No.9 of 2010 before the learned
Sessions Court, Surendranagar Camp at Limbdi, whereby, the
appeal preferred by the accused came to be allowed and the
learned Additional Sessions Judge, Surendranagar, Camp at
Limbdi quashed and set aside the judgment and order dated
18.01.2010 in Criminal Case No. 412 of 1999 passed by the learned
Judicial Magistrate Class, Muli and acquitted the accused from the
offence with which he was convicted.
3. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned
judgment and order passed by the learned Appellate Court, the
appellant - State has filed the present appeal mainly stating that
the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned
Appellate Court is illegal, arbitrary and without properly
appreciating the facts of the case and the materials available on
record. The learned Appellate Court has erred in appreciating the
evidence and without there being cogent and substantial reasons,
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/494/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/07/2025
undefined
acquitted the accused. The learned Appellate Court has erred in
appreciating the oral as well as the documentary evidences
produced by the prosecution in its true spirit and straightway
arrived at the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove
the case beyond reasonable doubts. The learned Appellate Court
has erred in appreciating the fact that from the oral evidence of the
witness, though it is established that on the day of incident, the
accused has assaulted the complainant and his wife with a stick
and caused severe injuries and this fact is corroborated by the oral
and documentary evidence on record. The learned Appellate
Court has committed an error in discarding the case on minor
discrepancies which ought not to have been given much
importance, and therefore, the order of acquittal passed by the
learned Appellate Court requires to be quashed and set aside.
4. Heard learned APP Mr.Pranav Dhagat for the
appellant - State and learned advocate Mr.Devang Vyas for the
respondent - accused. Perused the impugned judgment and order
of acquittal passed by the Appellate Court as well as judgment and
order of conviction passed by the learned Trial Court and have re-
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/494/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/07/2025
undefined
appreciated the entire evidence of the prosecution on record of the
case.
4.1. Learned APP Mr.Pranav Dhagat for the appellant -
State has taken this Court through the entire evidence produced
by the prosecution and has vehemently argued that the learned
Appellate Court has not appreciated the evidence properly and the
prosecution has produced cogent evidence to prove the case and
has successfully proved the case against the respondent but the
Appellate Court has not considered the same and has acquitted the
respondent. The judgment and order of acquittal passed by the
learned Appellate Court is contrary to law, evidence on record and
principles of justice. The judgment and order of acquittal passed
by learned Appellate Court is based on inferences, not warranted
by facts of the case and also on presumption, not permitted by law.
Learned APP has urged this Court to quash and set aside the
impugned judgment and order of acquittal and to find the
respondent guilty for the said offence. Learned APP has urged this
Court to allow the present appeal and impose maximum sentence
on the respondent.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/494/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/07/2025
undefined
4.2. Learned advocate Mr.Devang Vyas for the respondent
- original accused no.1 has submitted that the learned Appellate
Court has appreciated all the evidence in true perspective and has
not committed any error in acquitting the respondent. Therefore,
no interference of this Court is required in the impugned judgment
and the order of acquittal passed by the learned Appellate Court
and has urged this Court to reject the appeal.
5. To prove the charge against the accused, the
complainant has deposed an oath at Exh.56 and has narrated the
details of the complaint and has stated that his left hand was
fractured and his right leg was also injured and stitches were taken
at the Surendranagar Hospital on his right leg. The complainant
has identified his thumb impression on the complaint, which is
produced at Exh.57. During the cross-examination, the witness has
admitted that the place where the incident has occurred was not in
his ownership and there is no evidence that the land belongs to
him. At that time, there were other workers working in the fields
nearby.
5.1 PW-4 Jeetuben Manjibai is the wife of the complainant
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/494/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/07/2025
undefined
and she has deposed an oath at Exh.58 supporting the case of the
complainant.
5.2 PW-5 Premjibai Ramabai examined at Exh.59 is an eye
witness as per the case of the prosecution, but he has stated that he
does not know anything about the incident and has not supported
the case of the prosecution. The witness has been declared hostile
and has stated that he has not seen any incident and has not seen
the complainant injured.
5.3 PW-7 Bhawanbai Kanjibai Koli, as per the case of the
prosecution, was also an eye witness and went to intervene at the
time of the incident, but he too has stated that he does not know
anything about the incident, but came to know that the persons of
the Bharwad community had assaulted Manjibai Vajabai. In the
cross-examination, he has admitted that he has not seen the
incident and is not an eye witness to the incident.
5.4 PW-8 Dr. Ramaniklal Gordhandabai Thanki was
working as a Medical Officer at the General Hospital,
Surendranagar and the complainant was brought to him for
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/494/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/07/2025
undefined
treatment and he has stated that on 24.08.1999 at around 8.50pm,
the complainant was brought for treatment with a history of
assaulted with the stick by Arjanbhai Ratnabhai Bharwad at
4:00pm. He was admitted as an indoor patient and discharged on
02.09.1999, and on examination, he had a bruise over left shoulder
region about 5cmX4cm, tenderness swelling over left forearm,
blunt injury over calf muscle over both legs, but no marks of injury
were seen, CLW over right lower leg 1cmX¼cmX4cm, bruise over
back about 3cmX1.5cm and bruise over scapular region about
6cmX1.5cm. The cause of injury was with a hard and blunt object
and except injury no. 2, they were simple injuries and the recovery
would be within 6 to 8 weeks. The witness has produced the injury
certificate of the complainant at Exh.73. In the cross examination,
the witness has admitted that the injured did not state the name of
the persons, who had assaulted him and the injuries that were
sustained by the complainant could be sustained by a fall.
8. If the entire evidence of the prosecution is re-
appreciated, there are major contradictions in the deposition of the
complainant and in the complaint, the complainant has named 5
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/494/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/07/2025
undefined
persons, whereas, the charge sheet has been filed against 2
persons. As per the complaint, 5 persons had assaulted the
complainant with the sticks, which had iron rings at the end, but if
the injuries are perused as per the document produced at Exh.73,
they were simple injuries and the medical evidence does not
corroborate the incident as stated by the complainant. There is no
clear evidence as to who has assaulted the complainant and as per
the case of the prosecution, PW -5 Premjibhai Ramabhai and PW-7
Bhavanbhai Kanjibhai Koli were independent witnesses, who had
gone to intervene while the accused were assaulting the
complainant, but they had not supported the case of the
prosecution and have stated that they do not know anything about
the incident. PW-4 Jeetuben Manjibhai, the wife of the
complainant, who has been examined at Exh.58, has supported the
case of the prosecution, but her evidence has to be appreciated
minutely and it transpires that during the cross examination, she
has admitted that she is not an eye witness to the incident. There
are exaggerations in the evidence of the complainant and there is
no corroboration by any independent witnesses as per the say of
the witnesses and there is no evidence that the place, where the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/494/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/07/2025
undefined
incident has occurred, belonged to the complainant so that he
could restrain the accused from allowing their goats to graze in the
field.
9. In view of the above, the learned Appellate 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 Appellate Court has
appreciated all the evidence and this Court is of the considered
opinion that the learned Appellate Court was completely justified
in acquitting the accused of the charges leveled against them. The
findings recorded by the learned Appellate Court are absolutely
just and proper and no illegality or infirmity has been committed
by the learned Appellate Court and this Court is in complete
agreement with the findings, ultimate conclusion and the resultant
order of acquittal recorded by the learned Appellate Court. This
Court finds no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment
and order passed by the learned Appellate Court and the present
appeal is devoid of merits and resultantly, the same is dismissed.
10. The impugned judgment and the order passed by the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/494/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/07/2025
undefined
learned Additional Sessions Judge, Surendranagar, Camp at
Limbdi in Criminal Appeal No.9 of 2010 on 27.01.2012 is hereby
confirmed.
11. Bail bond stands cancelled. Record and proceedings be
sent back to the learned Appellate Court forthwith.
Sd/-
(S. V. PINTO,J)
F.S. KAZI
