Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Pratapbhai Genaji Suthar on 25 July, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1301/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/07/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1301 of 2012
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE S.V. PINTO Sd/-
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
No
==========================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
PRATAPBHAI GENAJI SUTHAR & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR. PRANAV DHAGAT, APP for the Appellant(s) No. 1
BAILABLE WARRANT SERVED for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No.
1,2,3,4
DS AFF.NOT FILED (N) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 5
RULE SERVED for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3,4
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE S.V. PINTO
Date : 25/07/2025
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 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Vadodara
(hereinafter referred to as "the learned Trial Court") in Special (ATRO)
Case No. 43 of 2010 on 18.05.2012, whereby, the learned Trial Court has
acquitted the respondents for the offence punishable under Sections 323,
504, 506(2) and 114 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and Section 3(1)(10)
of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities),
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1301/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/07/2025
undefined
Act, 1889.
1.1 The respondents are hereinafter referred to as the accused as they
stood in rank and file 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 As per the complaint, the complainant Kheniben widow of
Kanjibai Mayavanshi has stated that she was the owner of house No. E/14
situated at Manokamna Society-2, Opp: Somnath Nagar, Tarsali,
Vadodara and on 28-05-2010 at around 14.00 Hrs., while she tried to
enter her house, the accused had forcibly taken possession of the house
and pushed her out of the house and hurled caste-slurs against her. The
complainant filed the complaint under Sections 452, 323, 504, 506 (2)
and 114, of the IPC and Section 3 (1)(10) of the Atrocity Act at the
Makarpura Police Station, which came to be registered at Makarpura
Police Station, I-C.R.No.236 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 Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Vadodara and as the said offences against the
accused was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the case was
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1301/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/07/2025
undefined
committed to the Sessions Court, Vadodara as per the provisions of
Section 209 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and case was registered
Special (ATRO) Case No. 43 of 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. 3 was framed
against the accused and the statements of the accused were recorded at
Exhs. 4 to 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 ten oral evidences and seven
documentary evidences to bring home charge against the accused and
after the learned Additional Public Prosecutor filed the closing pursis at
Exh. 35, the further statement of the accused under Section 313 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 were 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 acquit all the accused from all the charges
leveled against them.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1301/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/07/2025
undefined
3. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said judgement and order
of acquittal, 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.
4. Heard learned APP Mr. Pranav Dhagat for the appellant - State.
Though served the respondents have not appeared either in person or
through an advocate. 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
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1301/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/07/2025
undefined
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. That 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 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. At the outset, before discussing the facts of the present case, it
would be appropriate to refer to the observations of the Apex Court 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 v. State of M.P., (2006) 10 SCC 313 : AIR 2006
SC 831, 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". (emphasis supplied)
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1301/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/07/2025
undefined
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 extensive powers of an appellate Court in an appeal against
acquittal. Such phraseologies are more iTimes New Romann 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.
7. The law with regard to acquittal appeals is well crystallized and in
acquittal appeals, there is a 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
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1301/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/07/2025
undefined
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. In light on the above settled principles of law and considering the
evidence of the prosecution on record, to bring home the charge against
the accused, the prosecution has examined Prosecution Witness No.1 -
Kheniben Wd/o Kanjibhai Mayavanshi at Exhibit 13 and it is her say that
House No. E/14 situated in Manokamna Society - 2, opposite Somnath
Nagar, Tarsali, Vadodara was the house belonging to her husband who
was working in the O.N.G.C., Vadodara. Her husband had his earlier wife
Kashiben and they had a son Suresh and after they divorced, the
complainant married the said Kanjibai. The son - Suresh had sold the
house to the accused and a civil case was filed by her against the accused
and Suresh and the accused had dispossessed her from the house but
during the cross-examination, the complainant has admitted that the
house was in the name of her son Suresh and Suresh had sold the house to
the accused No. 1. She does not have any residential proof about the
house and the house was constructed by Suresh after taking a loan.
Moreover, the complainant has also admitted that she had never seen any
of the accused besides the accused No. 1 prior to the incident and she was
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1301/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/07/2025
undefined
residing in a hut at Desai Colony in Tarsali along with all her household
articles. The complainant has also admitted that the accused did not know
which caste she belongs to. The complainant has produced the complaint
at Exhibit 14.
8.1 Prosecution Witness No. 2 - Jayantibhai Jethabhai Parmar
examined at Exhibit 16 is the brother of the complainant, but he has not
supported the case of the prosecution and has stated that he does not
know anything about the incident. The witness has been declared hostile
and cross-examined by the learned APP but nothing to support the case of
the prosecution has come on record.
8.2 Prosecution Witness No. 3 - Manjulaben Bhagwanbhai
examined at Exhibit 17 is the sister of the complainant, but is a hearsay
witness and has stated that her sister told her about the incident.
8.3 Prosecution Witness No. 4 - Sureshbhai Kanjibhai
Mayavanshi examined at Exhibit 18 is the son of the complainant and he
has stated that he is working as an Assistant Grade - I in the O.N.G.C.
Vadodara. His father - Kanjibhai was earlier working in the O.N.G.C. and
his father had remarried with the complainant - Kheniben. The witness
has stated that he had purchased E/14 in Manokamna Society - 2 situated
in Tarsali from a builder and had taken an amount of Rs. 50,000/- from
his stepmother, Kheniben and had taken a loan for the remaining amount
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1301/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/07/2025
undefined
and till 2007, they were residing in the house along with his wife and
children. In 2007, as he had family problems, he had gone to live on rent
in Sachidanand Society and his mother was residing in the house in
Manokamna Society. Thereafter, he sold the house to the accused and
they had taken the household goods and kept it at their house in Desai
Colony in Tarsali.
During the cross-examination by the learned advocate for the
accused, the witness has admitted that he had sold the house by a
registered sale-deed and an agreement to sale was also executed regarding
the property. All the procedure of changing the name in the electricity
bill, the electricity meter and other procedure was done and the house was
transferred to the name of the accused No. 1 without any dispute. The
possession of the house was also given to the accused and the
complainant was not happy with the sale and she was filing complaints
against the accused and himself at the Makarpura Police Station and the
witness has admitted that the complainant has only filed the complaint as
she wanted the possession of the house.
8.4 Prosecution Witness No. 5 - Gopiben Maheshbhai
Mayavanshi examined at Exhibit 23 is the tenant of the house of the
complainant in Tarsali and she has stated that Suresh, the son of the
complainant had brought the household goods of the complainant and had
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1301/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/07/2025
undefined
kept them in the house and thereafter she came to know that the
complainant has filed the complaint at Makarpura Police Station but is
not an eyewitness to any of the incident.
8.6 Prosecution Witness No. 6 - Vijaykumar Jayantilal Parmar
examined at Exhibit 25 is the nephew of the complainant, who is not an
eye-witness to the incident but he has stated that his aunty had told him
that she had a verbal altercation by someone called Pratapbhai but he
does not know Pratapbhai. The witness has stated that his marriage was
on 28.05.2010 on the date when the incident had taken place.
8.7 Prosecution Witness No. 7 - Meghrajbhai Nathabhai Harsh
examined at Exhibit 26 is the P.S.I., who has recorded the complaint of
the complainant and during the cross-examination by the learned
advocate for the accused, he has stated that the incident occurred at
around 2 p.m. and the complainant had come to file the complaint in the
evening but no explanation for the delay in filing of the complaint was
stated by the complaint. During the complaint, it had also emerged that
the house was sold by Sureshbhai the son of the complainant.
8.8 Prosecution Witness No. 8 - Maheshbhai Dhulabhai
examined at Exhibit 28 is the P.S.O., who has registered the complaint at
Makarpura Police Station I-.C.R.No. 236 of 2010 and has filed the extract
of the Station Diary at Exhibit 29.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1301/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/07/2025
undefined
8.9 Prosecution Witness No. 9 - Gulabsingh Dashrathsingh
Vasava examined at Exhibit 31 and Prosecution Witness No. 10
Balvantsinh Shimuji Rana examined at Exhibit 32 are the Investigating
Officers, who have investigated the offence and thereafter filed the
charge-sheet.
During the cross-examination by the learned advocate for the
accused, they have admitted that at the time of the panchnama no marks
were found at the place of incident and they have not recorded the
statements of the neighbours of the place where the incident has taken
place.
9. On minute appreciation of the entire evidence of the prosecution, it
has come on record that House No. E-14 Manokamna Society - 2,
situated opposite Somnathnagar in Tarsali, District: Vadodara was the
house in the name of Prosecution Witness No. 4 Sureshbhai Kanjibhai
Mayavanshi and he had purchased the house by taking a loan as well as
taking an amount of Rs.50,000/- from his mother but he had thereafter
sold the house to the accused and the accused had taken possession of the
house and were residing in the same house but the complainant wanted
the possession of the house and she had also filed a civil suit as also
complaint before the Makarpura Police Station regarding the same. The
complainant has also admitted that the accused did not know her caste
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1301/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/07/2025
undefined
and there was no reason for them to hurl any caste-slurs against her as
they were unaware about her caste and the incident as stated by the
complainant has occurred near the house of the accused. Moreover, there
is no evidence as to any injury being inflicted upon the complainant and
the complainant has not taken any treatment for the same. Admittedly, as
per the say of the complainant the incident has occurred near the house,
which was a residential area and there were neighbours but no such
independent witnesses have been examined before the learned trial Court.
There are major contradictions in the depositions of the complainant and
her son Prosecution Witness No. 4 Sureshbhai Kanjibhai Mayavanshi and
there is no evidence to corroborate the evidence of the complainant on
record.
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 illegality or infirmity has been committed by the learned
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1301/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/07/2025
undefined
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 learned
4th Additional Sessions Judge, Vadodara in Special (ATRO) Case No.
43 of 2010 on 18.05.2012, 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)
VVM
