Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Valibhai Adambhai Patel on 23 July, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/671/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/07/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 671 of 2011
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE S.V. PINTO
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting No
==========================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
VALIBHAI ADAMBHAI PATEL & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS. C.M. SHAH, APP for the Appellant(s) No. 1
ADILHUSHAIN M SAIYED(9723) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 2
BAILABLE WARRANT SERVED for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 2
BAILABLE WARRANT UNSERVED for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1
NOTICE SERVED for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 3
RULE SERVED for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE S.V. PINTO
Date : 23/07/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. The appeal is filed by the appellant State under
Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against
the judgement and order of acquittal passed by the learned
Special Judge (Atrocity) and 2nd Additional Sessions Judge,
Bharuch (hereinafter referred to as "the learned Trial Court")
in Special Case - Atro No. 38/2010 on 23.03.2011, whereby,
the learned Trial Court has acquitted the respondents for
the offence punishable under Sections 323, 504, 506(2) and
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/671/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/07/2025
undefined
114 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 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 During the pendency of the appeal, the respondent no.
1 - Valibhai Adambhai Patel had expired on 08.11.2018 and
the death certificate is issued by Talati Cum Mantri of Vahlu
Gram Panchayat, Taluka & District Bharuch hence, the
appeal qua the respondent no. 1 stands abated.
1.2 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 The complainant - Rajeshbhai Kushalbhai Parmar was
the owner of agricultural land bearing survey nos. 275 and
280 situated in village Vahlu and the land was mortgaged
with the accused no. 1 for Rs. 70,000/-. The complainant
had paid an amount of Rs. 1,54,000/- and had released the
mortgage and had given a public notice in the daily
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/671/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/07/2025
undefined
newspaper Divya Bhaskar on 25.05.2010 and had filed a
caveat application on the next day. On 15.06.2010, being
aggrieved by the action of the complainant, at around 09.00
am, the accused came to the house of the complainant and
abused them as to why the notice had been given and also
hurled caste slurs against the complainant. The accused no.
1 had a stick and he assaulted the complainant on the right
leg and the accused no. 2 assaulted the complainant with
fists on his chest. As the complainant shouted his cousin -
Ranjitbhai Ishwarbhai Parmar intervened and saved him.
The accused also abused Ranjitbhai and threatened to kill
him. The complainant filed the complaint before the
Bharuch Taluka Police Station under Sections 323, 504,
506(2), 114 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(1)(10) of
the Atrocity Act which came to be registered as Bharuch
Taluka Police Station II - C.R. No. 44 of 2010.
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
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/671/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/07/2025
undefined
Magistrate First Class, Bharuch and as the said offences
against the accused were exclusively triable by the Court of
Sessions, the case was committed to the Sessions Court,
Bharuch as per the provisions of Section 209 of Code of
Criminal Procedure and the case was registered as Special
Case - Atro No. 38/2010
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. 5 was framed against the
accused and the statements of the accused was recorded at
Exhs. 6 and 7 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 9 witnesses and produced 7
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
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/671/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/07/2025
undefined
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
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
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/671/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/07/2025
undefined
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. Adilhushain Saiyed for the
respondent no. 2. Perused the impugned judgement and
order of acquittal and have reappreciated the entire
evidence of the prosecution on record of the case.
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
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/671/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/07/2025
undefined
& 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
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
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/671/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/07/2025
undefined
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.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/671/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/07/2025
undefined
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
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. To prove the offence against the accused, the
prosecution has in all examined four witnesses wherein the
complainant - Rajeshbhai Kushalbhai Parmar is examined
at Exh. 11, PW2 - Ranjitbhai Ishwarbhai Parmar is
examined at Exh. 17, PW5 - Rekhaben Rajeshbhai Parmar
is examined at Exh. 18 and PW6 - Nandubhai Kushalbhai
Parmar is examined at Exh. 19. The complainant has
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/671/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/07/2025
undefined
mainly stated the facts of the complaint which is produced
at Exh. 11 and has also produced his caste certificate at
Exh. 12. But during the cross-examination, it has emerged
on record that there are civil litigations pending between
the parties and the accused no. 1 has filed Regular Civil
Suit No. 137 of 2010 before the Court of the Principal
Senior Civil Judge, Bharuch which is pending. The
complainant has also admitted that an agreement to sale of
the said property has been registered with the Sub
Registrar Office, Bharuch on 31.01.2007 and the accused
has produced the copy of the registered agreement to sell at
Exh. 28. As per the document, the agreement to sell
property bearing survey/block nos. 275 and 280 situated in
the outskirts of village Vahlu has been entered into between
the accused no. 1 and the complainant and the purchase
price is fixed at Rs. 1,00,000/- and an amount of Rs.
70,000/- was given as the price of agreement to sell. The
document has been executed on a non-judicial stamp paper
of Rs. 100/- and has been registered with the Sub
Registrar, Bharuch at serial no. 608 of 2007 on
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/671/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/07/2025
undefined
31.01.2007. It is pertinent to note that as per the case of
the complainant, the property was mortgaged for an
amount of Rs. 70,000/- but the complainant has not
produced any mortgage deed during his evidence. Moreover,
the complainant has also admitted that on the next day of
the incident, one Saeedbhai Vakil who was his advocate
had taken him to the Taluka Police Station and the accused
no. 1 had given an application stating that he did not
receive the amount and he was called to the Police Station
for explaining the same thing. As per the complaint, the
incident has occurred on 15.06.2010 and the complaint is
filed on 16.06.2010 but there is no explanation regarding
the delay in filing of the complaint.
8.1 As per the case of the complainant, PW4 - Ranjitbhai
Ishwarbhai Parmar examined at Exh. 17 had intervened
and the witness has stated that on the day of the incident,
the accused had come to the house of the complainant. The
witness has also stated that an amount of Rs. 1,54,000/-
was given to the accused no. 1 and the land that was
mortgaged was released but during the cross-examination
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/671/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/07/2025
undefined
he has admitted that the complainant is his cousin brother
and the land is in the joint names of Nanduben,
Rajeshbhai, Ramilaben, Manjulaben and himself and he
has not seen the deed of mortgage. That he has no
knowledge about the contents of the mortgage deed and he
did not ask the complainant for the copy of the mortgage
deed and has not seen the same till today. The witness has
also admitted that the complainant had executed the
agreement to sale at the Sub-Registrar, Bharuch office on
31.01.2007 which was registered at serial no. 608 of 2007
without their knowledge and he does not know the
transaction that had taken place between the complainant
and the accused no. 1. The witness has also admitted that
the accused no. 1 had filed an application before the DSP
against him and the complainant on 03.06.2010 and they
were called to the Taluka Police Station on 16.06.2010 and
has admitted that there is the dispute regarding the land
between the parties.
8.2 PW3 - Rekhaben Rajeshbhai Parmar examined at Exh.
18 is the wife of the complainant and she too has stated
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/671/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/07/2025
undefined
that the incident has occurred at her house on 15.06.2010
at around 09.00 am when both the accused came to their
house. During the cross-examination, she has admitted
that there is a dispute about the land between her husband
and the accused no. 1.
8.3 PW6 - Nanduben Kushalbhai Parmar examined at Exh.
19 is a hearsay witness and she was not at the house when
the incident has occurred and she came to know about the
incident from her son Rajeshbhai - the complainant.
As far as the place of incident is concerned, the
prosecution has produced the panchnama of the place of
offence at Exh. 4 and the place of incident is shown to be
outside of the house of the complainant, whereas, the
complainant and all the other witnesses state that the
accused had come to their house and the incident has
occurred inside the house of the complainant.
9. On appreciation of the entire evidence of the
prosecution, the evidence that has emerged is that the
complainant has stated that the land situated in village
Vahlu bearing survey nos. 275 and 280 were mortgaged
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/671/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/07/2025
undefined
with the accused no. 1 but no mortgage deed has emerged
on record. The complainant has also stated that the land
was mortgaged for Rs. 70,000/- and an amount of Rs.
1,54,000/- was paid and the mortgage was released but no
such evidence has emerged and there is no witness as to
how and where the amount of Rs. 1,54,000/- was given. In
fact, in the evidence produced on record by the accused no.
1, the registered agreement to sell has come on record at
Exh. 28 and it appears that the complainant has not come
with the true facts before the learned Trial Court. There is
also a Regular Civil Suit No. 137 of 2010 pending before the
Court of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Bharuch and in
the evidence it has also emerged that the accused no. 1 had
given an application before the DSP, Bharuch that the
amount as stated by the complainant has not been received
by him and the complainant and PW4 - Ranjitbhai
Ishwarbhai Parmar were called to the Bharuch Police
Station on 16.06.2010. Moreover in the entire evidence, the
family members do not fully support the case of the
prosecution and they all do not narrate the exact words
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/671/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/07/2025
undefined
that were uttered by the accused at the time of the incident.
The caste certificate of the complainant has been produced
on record at Exh. 12 but no investigation into the caste
certificate has been done and there is no evidence on record
as to whether the caste certificate is of the complainant or
not and how and when it was issued. As discussed above,
the place of incident is in the house of the accused and
there are contradictions as far as the place of offence is
concerned and all the evidence has been 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
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/671/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/07/2025
undefined
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.
11. The impugned judgement and order of acquittal
passed by the learned Special Judge (Atrocity) and 2 nd
Additional Sessions Judge, Bharuch in Special Case - Atro
No. 38/2010 on 23.03.2011, 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
