Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Lalabhai Punjabhai Chaudhary on 25 July, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1503/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/07/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1503 of 2012
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE S.V. PINTO Sd/-
================================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
√
================================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
LALABHAI PUNJABHAI CHAUDHARY & ORS.
===============================================================
Appearance:
MR PRANAV DHAGAT, APP for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR MANISH J PATEL(2131) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3,4,5,6
================================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE S.V. PINTO
Date : 25/07/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. During pendency of the present criminal appeal, the
respondent no. 1 Lalabhai Punjabhai Chaudhari, respondent no. 2
Babubhai Punjabhai Chaudhari and the respondent no.6 Umesh
Manubhai Chaudhari have expired. Accordingly, the criminal
appeal stands disposed of as abated qua the respondent no. 1
Lalabhai Punjabhai Chaudhari, respondent no. 2 Babubhai
Punjabhai Chaudhari and respondent no.6 Umesh Manubhai
Chaudhari.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1503/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/07/2025
undefined
2. 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 dated 26.06.2012 in Criminal Appeal No.231 of 2011 passed
by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.8, Ahmedabad
City (hereinafter referred to as 'the learned Appellate Court'),
whereby, the learned Appellate Court has quashed and set aside
the judgment and order 12.05.2011 in Criminal Case No. 2545 of
2003 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Court No.19,
Ahmedabad, (hereinafter referred to as 'the learned Trial Court)
whereby, the learned Trial Court convicted and sentenced the
accused to undergo simple imprisonment of one month and fine of
Rs.1000/- and in default, simple imprisonment of 15 days for the
offence punishable 143 of the IPC, simple imprisonment of two
months and fine of Rs.2000/- and in default, simple imprisonment
of one month for the offence punishable 147 of the IPC and simple
imprisonment of six months and fine of Rs.1000/- and in default,
simple imprisonment of fifteen days for the offence punishable 323
of the IPC. The learned Trial Court was pleased to further order all
the sentences to run concurrently.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1503/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/07/2025
undefined
2.1. The respondents are 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.
3. The relevant facts leading to filing of the present
appeal are as under:
3.1. On 14.06.2003, at around 8:30hours, the complainant,
Amitbhai Motibhai Choudhury, was at his office named 'Mittal
Traders' at Govindwadi in Isanpur and the accused formed an
unlawful assembly and came to 'Mittal Traders' and assaulted the
complainant and the witnesses. The accused No.5 had a knife with
him and witness No.9, Pinkal Motibhai Choudhury, had worn a
gold chain in his neck, which fell down and his shirt was torn and
a damage of Rs.10,000/- was caused. The complainant, Amitbhai
Motibhai Choudhury, filed the complaint at Vatva Police Station
under Sections 143, 147, 323, 294(B), 506(2) and 427 of the IPC and
Section 135(1) of the B.P.Act.
3.2. 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
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1503/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/07/2025
undefined
to the accused as per the provisions of Section 207 of the Code. A
charge was framed by the learned Trial Court at Exh.3 and the
statements of the accused were recorded at Exh.4 to Exh.9,
wherein, the accused denied all the contents of the charge and the
entire evidence of the prosecution was taken on record. The
prosecution examined 11 witnesses and produced 9 documentary
evidences in support of the case.
3.3. After the closing pursis was submitted by the learned
APP, the further statement of the accused under Section 313 of the
Code was recorded. After hearing the arguments of the learned
APP and learned advocate for the accused and perusing the
documents on record, the learned Trial Court, by the impugned
judgment and order dated 18.01.2010, was pleased to acquit the
accused for the offence under Sections 427, 294(B) and 506(2) of the
IPC and Section 135(1) of the B.P.Act and convict and sentence the
accused to undergo simple imprisonment of one month and fine of
Rs.1000/- and in default, simple imprisonment of 15 days for the
offence punishable 143 of the IPC, simple imprisonment of two
months and fine of Rs.2000/- and in default, simple imprisonment
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1503/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/07/2025
undefined
of one month for the offence punishable 147 of the IPC and simple
imprisonment of six months and fine of Rs.1000/- and in default,
simple imprisonment of fifteen days for the offence punishable 323
of the IPC.
3.4. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned
judgment and order passed by the learned Trial Court, the
appellant - accused preferred Criminal Appeal No.231 of 2011
before the Sessions Court, Ahmedabad, whereby, the appeal
preferred by the accused came to be allowed and the learned
learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.8, Ahmedabad City
quashed and set aside the judgment and order passed by the
learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Court No.19, Ahmedabad in
Criminal Case No. 2545 of 2003 on 12.05.2011.
4. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned
judgment and order passed by the learned Appellate Court, the
appellant - original complainant has filed the present appeal
mainly stating that the impugned judgment and order passed by
the Appellate Court is illegal, arbitrary and without properly
appreciating the facts of the case and the materials available on
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1503/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/07/2025
undefined
record. The 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 ought to have appreciated that the
learned Trial Court had given proper and cogent reasons and had
discussed the evidence in details while convicting the respondents
- accused. The learned Appellate Court has erred in appreciating
the fact that the learned Trial Court has, without giving any
specific reason, not discussed the evidence of the witnesses in the
impugned judgment and order of acquittal and has discarded the
evidence of the witnesses, which was fully supported the case of
the prosecution. The learned Appellate Court has passed the
impugned judgment and order of acquittal, without giving any
cogent and convincing reasons, illegal, invalid and improper, and
therefore, the same requires to be quashed and set aside.
5. Heard learned APP Mr.Pranav Dhagat for the
appellant - State and learned advocate Mr.Manish J. Patel for the
respondents. Perused the impugned judgment and order of
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1503/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/07/2025
undefined
acquittal and have re-appreciated the entire evidence of the
prosecution on record of the case.
6. Learned APP Mr.Prahav Dhagat for the appellant -
State has taken this Court through the entire evidence produced
by the prosecution and has vehemently argued that the learned
Trial 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 respondents but the
learned Trial Court has not considered the same and has acquitted
the respondents. The judgment and order of acquittal passed by
the learned Judge is contrary to law, evidence on record and
principles of justice. The judgment and order of acquittal passed
by learned Judge 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 respondents guilty
for the said offence. Learned APP has urged this Court to allow the
present appeal and impose maximum sentence on the
respondents.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1503/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/07/2025
undefined
7. Learned advocate Mr.Manish J. Patel for the
respondents has submitted that the learned Appellate Court has
appreciated all the evidence in true perspective and has not
committed any error in acquitting the accused. Therefore, no
interference of this Court is required in the impugned judgement
and the order of acquittal passed by the learned Appellate Court
and has urged this Court to reject the appeal.
8. The entire evidence of the prosecution is appreciated
and it is on record that the accused Nos. 1 to 4 are the uncles of the
complainant and the other accused are the relatives of the
complainant. The complainant has stated that the ancestral
property was partitioned between his father and their brothers
four years prior to the incident, and at the time of the incident, it
was a dispute about a power of attorney regarding the property.
The complainant has fully supported the contents of the complaint
and during the cross-examination, he has admitted that the
accused Nos.1 to 4 are his uncles and the others are his cousins.
The property was a joint property and a Partition Deed was
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1503/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/07/2025
undefined
executed between them and there are litigations pending between
the parties.
8.1 PW-2, Rajeshbhai Motibhai Choudhury examined at
Exh.8 is the brother of the complainant and he too has supported
the contents of the complaint and he has stated that the accused
came and asked his father for the power of attorney. His father
demanded for the Partition Deed and that is why the accused got
angry and started abusing and assaulting them. That he
intervened and he too had sustained injuries. The witness has
admitted that there was a partition between the parties regarding
the properties and they had earlier joint businesses, but he is not
sure, about which, properties were partitioned. Pinkal Motibhai
Choudhury examined at Exh.9 is the other brother of the
complainant, who has similarly narrated the same facts and has
admitted regarding the dispute of the properties between the
parties.
8.2. Witness Amritgiri Kalugiri Gosai examined at Exh.17 is
the panch witness of the place of offence and witness Paresh
Chimanlal Vyas examined at Exh.14 is the panch witness of the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1503/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/07/2025
undefined
arrest panchnama. Witness Somabhai Poonjabhai Rana examined
at Exh.23 has stated that he is known to both the parties, and on
the day of the incident, the accused had come and they had an
altercation between them. He came to know later on that Pinkal
was assaulted by someone and his shirt was torn and he was at his
tea stall, which was near the shop of Motibhai Choudhury, the
father of the complainant, and he has good relations with them.
8.3. Witness Motibhai Poonjabhai Choudhury examined at
Exh.24 is the father of the complainant and he has stated that on
14.06.2003 when he was at his shop the accused Nos. 1 and 2 came
and asked for the power of attorney and he demanded for the doc-
uments, but they got angry and went outside abusing shouting
abuses. The others, who were outside near the gate, assaulted his
son, and thereafter, while he was going he too was assaulted. In
the cross-examination, the witness has admitted that they had
good relations earlier and the lands, factories residential etc. were
partitioned and the shops in 'Abhimanyu Complex' were in his
possession.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1503/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/07/2025
undefined
9. On appreciation of the entire evidence of the
prosecution, it appears that the incident has occurred in the
complex, where the office was situated in Govindwadi, but no
independent witnesses have been examined regarding the
incident. Moreover, the parties are family members and there are
civil disputes regarding the joint properties and prior to this
incident, there was no dispute between the parties. In the evidence
of Motibhai Punjabhai Choudhury at Exh.24, he has stated that
only two accused came and demanded for the power of attorney
and when he demanded for the papers of the property, they got
angry and left the shop shouting abuses. There is admission on the
part of all the parties that there are civil disputes between the
parties and the witnesses who have been examined are the
complainant and his brothers and his father. The other witness,
who is the owner of the tea stall, Somabhai Poonjabhai Rana at
Exh.23 has admitted that his tea stall is near the shop of the
complainant and he has good relations with the complainant and
there is no independent evidence that the incident as narrated by
the complainant had taken place. There are major contradictions in
the deposition of the complainant and his brothers, the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1503/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/07/2025
undefined
eyewitnesses, and there is no iota of evidence that all the accused
came together forming an unlawful assembly and had committed
the offence. It appears that the accused Nos. 1 and 2 had come to
demand for the power of attorney from the father of the
complainant, and when he demanded for the documents, they got
angry and they went away, and thereafter, the case has been filed.
Moreover, the complainant and his brothers have not clearly
deposed about the shops in 'Abhimanyu Complex' and it appears
that the civil dispute between the parties that the case has been
filed due to the civil dispute between the parties.
10. 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 as there was no evidence of all the
accused forming an unlawful assembly and being present at the
place of offence. 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
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1503/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/07/2025
undefined
by the learned Trial Court are absolutely just and proper and no il-
legality or infirmity has been committed by the learned Trial Court
and this Court is in complete agreement with the findings, ulti-
mate 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 judgment and the order passed by the
learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.8, Ahmedabad City
in Criminal Appeal No.231 of 2011 on dated 26.06.2012 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)
F.S.KAZI.....
