Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Jigneshgiri Devgiri Goswami on 25 July, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1123/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/07/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1123 of 2012
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE S.V. PINTO
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting No
==========================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
JIGNESHGIRI DEVGIRI GOSWAMI & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR. PRANAV DHAGAT, APP for the Appellant(s) No. 1
BAILABLE WARRANT SERVED for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 2
BAILABLE WARRANT UNSERVED for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1
MR DILIP L KANOJIYA(3691) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1,2
UNSERVED EXPIRED (N) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 3
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE S.V. PINTO
Date : 25/07/2025
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 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Rajula (hereinafter
referred to as "the learned Trial Court") in Special Case
(Atro) No. 7/2011 on 23.04.2012, whereby, the learned Trial
Court has acquitted the respondents for the offence
punishable under Sections 324, 323, 504, 506(2) and 114 of
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1123/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/07/2025
undefined
Indian Penal Code 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 The accused had earlier eve teased Hansaben - the
cousin of the complainant - Balubhai Somatbhai Sankhat
and on 10.12.2008 at around 08.00 pm, the complainant
met the accused no. 1 at the Ramapir Temple in Balana
village of Jaffrabad Taluka of Amreli District and scolded the
accused no. 1 as to why he was eve teasing Hansaben - the
cousin of the complainant and as the accused no. 1 did not
like the scolding, both the accused assaulted the
complainant, abused him and dashed him on the ground
and took sticks and injured the complainant as also
threatened to kill him and hurled caste slurs against the
complainant. The complainant filed the complaint at
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1123/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/07/2025
undefined
Jaffrabad Police Station under Sections 323, 324, 504,
506(2) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(1)(10) of the
Atrocity Act which came to be registered as Jaffrabad Police
Station I - C.R. No. 29 of 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, Rajula and as the said offences
against the accused were exclusively triable by the Court of
Sessions, the case was committed to the Sessions Court,
Rajula as per the provisions of Section 209 of Code of
Criminal Procedure and the case was registered as Special
Case (Atro) No. 7/2011.
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 were recorded at
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1123/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/07/2025
undefined
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
16 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
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
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1123/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/07/2025
undefined
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 Mr. Pranav Dhagat for the
appellant State and learned advocate Mr. Dilip Kanojiya for
respondent nos. 1 and 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 Mr. Pranav Dhagat 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
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1123/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/07/2025
undefined
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. Learned advocate Mr. Dilip Kanojiya for respondent
nos. 1 and 2 has submitted that the learned Trial Court has
appreciated the evidence and passed the impugned
judgement and order and no interference is required hence,
the appeal may be rejected.
7. 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
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1123/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/07/2025
undefined
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 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
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1123/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/07/2025
undefined
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.
8. 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
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1123/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/07/2025
undefined
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.
9. In light of the above settled principle of law, the
evidence of the prosecution is dissected and the
prosecution has examined PW1 - Balubhai Somabhai at
Exh. 18 and the witness is the complainant who has
narrated the facts as stated in the complaint which is
produced at Exh. 20. During the cross-examination the
witness has stated that the incident has occurred near a
shop on a public road at around 08.00 pm and it was dark
and when he went to the shop to have paan there were
many persons sitting there. The accused had later on come
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1123/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/07/2025
undefined
to the paan shop and they had a talk before the incident.
That none of the persons who were sitting there intervened
and his mother and his uncle came to the spot after about
half an hour. He did not inform the doctor at Jaffrabad
about any incident and even though his clothes were
stained with blood he did not give them to the police. The
complainant has stated that it is written in the complaint
that the accused had a stick but the accused did not have
any stick with them. That he himself had gone to the
hospital at Mahuva and taken treatment for two days.
9.1 PW2 - Nathuben Somabhai examined at Exh. 34 is the
mother of the complainant but she has not supported the
case of the prosecution and she has merely stated that her
son had some verbal altercation but she does not know
anything about the incident. The witness has been declared
hostile and nothing to support the case of the prosecution
has come on record during the cross-examination by the
learned APP.
9.2 PW3 - Ramjibhai Bachubhai examined at Exh. 36 and
PW4 - Varjangbhai Jinabhai examined at Exh. 38 are the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1123/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/07/2025
undefined
panch witnesses of the panchnama of the place of offence
which is produced at Exh. 37. Both the witnesses have not
supported the case of the prosecution and have been
declared hostile.
9.3 PW5 - Jigneshbhai Rameshbhai Vadiya examined at
Exh. 39 and PW6 - Akhtarraja Iqbalbhai examined at Exh.
41 are the panch witnesses of the arrest panchnama by
which both the accused were arrested and the same is
produced at Exh. 40. Both the witnesses have not
supported the case of the prosecution and have been
declared hostile.
9.4 PW7 - Kalabhai Kanabhai examined at Exh. 43 is the
uncle of the complainant who as per the case of the
complainant had come to intervene and save him but the
witness has stated that on 10.12.2008 he was at his house
and he heard some sounds and went outside. There were a
number of persons gathered there and a quarrel had taken
place and his nephew Babu - the complainant was lying on
the floor. He was taken to the hospital but he does not
know for what reason and with whom the quarrel had
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1123/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/07/2025
undefined
taken place and whether the quarrel was with regard to the
eve teasing of Hansaben.
9.5 PW8 - Jagdishbhai Palabhai examined at Exh. 44, as
per the case of the prosecution is an eyewitness who was at
the paan shop at the time of the incident. The witness has
stated that his father owns the paan beedi shop but the
witness has not supported the case of the prosecution and
he has denied that any such incident has taken place.
9.6 PW9 - Babubhai Ramjibhai Pandore examined at Exh.
56 is the Investigating Officer who has narrated the
procedure undertaken by him during investigation.
10. On minute appreciation of the entire evidence of the
prosecution, as per the case of the complainant, the
incident has occurred on 10.12.2008 at around 08.00 pm.
on a public road outside a paan shop but no independent
witnesses have been examined to support the case of the
prosecution and corroborate the contents of the complaint
which is produced at Exh. 20. PW2 - Nathuben Somabhai
examined at Exh. 34 and PW7 - Kalabhai Kanabhai
examined at Exh. 43 are the mother and the uncle of the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1123/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/07/2025
undefined
complainant and as per the case of the complainant, they
had come and intervened and saved him but both the
witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution
and have denied that any such incident had taken place
and that the incident had taken place because of the eve
teasing done by the accused to the cousin of the
complainant. PW8 - Jagdishbhai Palabhai examined at Exh.
44, as per the case of the prosecution, was at the spot
where the incident has taken place but he too has not
supported the case of the prosecution and there is no iota
of evidence that the incident has ever taken place.
Moreover, the complainant has in the complaint stated that
the accused were armed with sticks but during the cross
examination has admitted that the accused had come to
the shop to have paan later on and they did not have any
sticks with them. There is no evidence of any Medical
Officer produced on record and there is no iota of evidence
that the incident as stated by the complainant has ever
taken place. The learned Trial Court has appreciated all the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1123/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/07/2025
undefined
evidence in detail and has passed the impugned judgment
and order of acquittal.
11. 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/1123/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/07/2025
undefined
12. The impugned judgement and order of acquittal
passed by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Rajula
in Special Case (Atro) No. 7/2011 on 23.04.2012, 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)
VASIM S. SAIYED
