Gujarat High Court
Mathurbhai Maganbhai Patel vs State Of Gujarat on 29 July, 2025
Author: Gita Gopi
Bench: Gita Gopi
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1790/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/07/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1790 of 2009
With
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2518 of 2009
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE GITA GOPI
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
√
==========================================================
MATHURBHAI MAGANBHAI PATEL
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance in Criminal Appeal No.1790 of 2009
GIRISH K PATEL(2770) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR.RAJESH B SONI(2632) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MS MONALI BHATT APP for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1
Appearance in Criminal Appeal No.2518 of 2009
MS MONALI BHATT APP for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR.PT JASANI for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1 - 2, 3 - 6, 7
GIRISH K PATEL(2770) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1 - 6, 7
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE GITA GOPI
Date : 29/07/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
Criminal Appeal No.1790 of 2009
1. The present appeal was filed by the appellant -
accused, who was convicted by the Principal Sessions
Judge, Mahesana on 25.09.2009 in Special Atrocity Case
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1790/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/07/2025
undefined
No.36/09 under Section 3(1)(xiv) of the Scheduled Castes
and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,
1989 (for short "Atrocities Act"). While he and other seven
accused were acquitted for the offence punishable under
Sections 143, 506(2) read with Section 114 of the IPC and
Section 3(1)(x) of the Atrocities Act. The rest of the seven
accused were also acquitted under Section 3(1)(xiv) of the
Atrocities Act.
2. The sole appellant - Mathurbhai Maganbhai Patel died
on 06.03.2022. Learned APP Ms. Monali Bhatt has
produced the report of Head Constable, Kadi Police Station,
which is supported by death certificate of appellant with the
statement of the son of sole appellant - Mathurbhai
Maganbhai Patel. Verifying the death on 06.03.2022, the
report is ordered to be taken on record.
3. In view of the report and since the sole appellant -
Mathurbhai Maganbhai Patel died on 06.03.2022, the
Criminal Appeal No.1790 of 2009 stands disposed of as
abated.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1790/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/07/2025
undefined
Criminal Appeal No.2518 of 2009
1. The present appeal is filed by the State under Section
378(1)(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, (for short
'Cr.P.C.') against the judgment and order dated 25.09.2009
passed in Special Atrocity Case No.36/09 by the Principal
Sessions Judge, Mahesana qua the original accused Nos.2
to 8 for the offence under Sections 143, 506(2) and 114 of
the Indian Penal Code and under Section 3(1)(x) and 3(1)
(xiv) of the Atrocities Act.
1.1 The learned Sessions Judge convicted the accused
No.1 - Mathurbhai Maganbhai Patel, who is now deceased,
finding him guilty for the offence under Section 3(1)(xiv) of
the Atrocities Act.
2. Learned APP Ms. Monali Bhatt has produced on record
the report of Head Constable, Kadi Police Station and
according to the report, accused No.2 - Patel Bachubhai
Harjivandas died on 27.03.2018, accused No.3 - Patel
Kantilal Manilal died on 06.06.2023 and accused No.4 -
Patel Dahyabhai Tribhovandas died on 28.10.2020. The
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1790/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/07/2025
undefined
death certificates of all the three accused, who are
respondent Nos.1 to 3 in the present matter, are produced
on record with the report supported by statement of the
concerned persons. The report as well as death certificates
with the statements are ordered to be taken on record.
2.1 In view of the report, the present appeal against
respondent Nos.1 to 3 stands abated. Hence, the appeal
would be now concerning respondent Nos.4 to 7, who were
accused Nos.5 to 8 of the Special Atrocity Case No.36/09.
3. The facts of the case, as had been presented before the
trial Court suggest that the complainant - Bharatkumar
Manilal Parmar resident of Kherpur, Taluka - Kadi, District
Mahesana, who is doing agriculture work, on 11.02.2009 at
about 8 O' clock in the morning along with fifteen other
persons were going for Darshan of Ramji, Hanumanji at
goddess Verai temple. At that time, respondents - accused
were standing there, who abused them and threatened to
kill them. To avoid the altercation, the complainant and
others returned back home. A complaint was filed on
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1790/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/07/2025
undefined
14.02.2009 at Kadi Police Station as C.R. No.I-30/2009,
where eight accused were proceeded for the offence under
Sections 143, 506(2) read with Section 114 of IPC and
Section 3(1)(x) and Section 3(1)(xiv) of the Atrocities Act.
4. Learned APP Ms. Monali Bhatt submitted that in order
to bring home the charges against the accused, the
prosecution had examined as many as ten witnesses. The
evidence of complainant - Bharatkumar Manilal Parmar
(P.W.1) and Parmar Jivanbhai Karshanbhai (PW2) are
corroborating with the evidence of other witnesses; in spite
of that, learned Sessions Judge failed to appreciate this fact
and had acquitted rest of the accused only convicting
accused No.1.
4.1 Learned APP Ms. Bhatt submitted that the learned
Sessions Judge has failed to appreciate that at the date,
time and place of incident, the accused abused the
complainant by his caste and by beating him and
threatening others, had committed the offence under IPC
and Atrocities Act. The learned Judge has failed to
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1790/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/07/2025
undefined
appreciate the evidence of the witnesses, which are
corroborating in nature.
4.2 Learned APP Ms. Bhatt further stated that the
complainant belongs to scheduled caste community and the
utterance of the accused were to insult him in a public place
and in public view and the abusive words have lower down
the dignity of the complainant and the witnesses. The
accused by forming an unlawful assembly had threatened
the complainant and other witnesses, in prosecution for
their common object of not allowing the members of
schedule caste to enter the temple. Ms. Bhatt submitted
that there were ample evidence on record in the form of oral
and documentary to support the prosecution case and
though there was abusive utterance by the accused, in spite
of that, the case under Section 3(1)(x) of the Atrocities Act
has not been believed, which is a grave error.
4.3 Learned APP Ms. Bhatt submitted that Jivanbhai
Karshanbhai (PW2) has supported the prosecution case still
the learned Judge has disbelieved him. Ms. Bhatt stated
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1790/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/07/2025
undefined
that in the same way, Natvarbhai Tribhovanbhai Parmar
(PW3), Kanjibhai Ramabhai Parmar (PW4), Valjibhai
Ranchhodbhai Parmar (PW7), Jagatsinh Takhubha Rana
(PW8), Pradipkumar Bhogilal (PW9) and Firozkhan
Sharifkhan Pathan (PW10), though have supported the
prosecution case, the learned Judge has committed grave
error in disbelieving and discarding the evidence of the
witnesses.
5. Having heard learned APP Ms. Bhatt, perused the
impugned judgment. The learned Trial Court Judge first had
appreciated the evidence in context of Section 143 IPC to
verify the evidence of formation of unlawful assembly. The
learned Trial Court Judge has disbelieved the evidence of
any unlawful assembly under Section 141 of the IPC having
any common object to prosecutes an offence. The learned
Judge has observed that the offence, as noted under Section
141 IPC, has not been proved. There is no criminal force
exerted for prosecution of the alleged common object, nor
there was any further continuance of the assembly proved
to consider it as an unlawful, and the learned Judge has
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1790/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/07/2025
undefined
also noted that there was no knowledge shared by the
persons alleged for the prosecution of any common object.
5.1 The allegation is that the deceased accused No.1 -
Mathurbhai Maganbhai Patel by the casteist remarks
against the complainant had restrained him from entering
the temple.
5.2 The learned Judge has not found other accused Nos.2
to 8 uttering such abusive words against the complainant.
Except accused No.1 - Mathurbhai Maganbhai Patel, none
were found to have restricted the complainant to enter the
temple.
5.3 The learned Judge has also found contradiction in the
evidence of the witnesses of the allegation of intimidating
the complainant by his life. Such intimidation had no
corroboration from the other witnesses. The learned Trial
Court Judge has observed that the complainant in his
deposition at Exh.12 has specifically stated that Patel
Mathurbhai Maganbhai of their village had abused him by
his caste and had restrained him from entering the temple
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1790/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/07/2025
undefined
and he had given threat of causing grievous hurt by
breaking down his hands and legs and also threat of death
was given. Though, such evidence was given in the
deposition, but such fact has not been recorded in the
complaint Exh.13.
5.4 The Police Officer - Jagatsinh Takhubha Rana at
Exh.22 had recorded the complaint and stated that such
kind of facts have not been recorded in the complaint. Thus,
the police officer at Exh.22 has categorically stated that no
such fact of giving threat or intimidation was recorded in
the complaint.
5.5 The witness - Jivanbhai Karshanbhai at Exh.14 stated
that the deceased accused - Mathurbhai Maganbhai had
abused them by their caste and asked complainant and
other witnesses not to visit the temple and the allegation
was that all the accused got excited. Apart from that no
other evidence has been given by the witness about alleged
threat to life, and that becomes clear from the evidence.
Rather the witness - Natvarbhai Parmar at Exh.15 only
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1790/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/07/2025
undefined
alleges about accused - Mathurbhai Maganbhai asking the
complainant not to enter for worship in the temple and had
also stated of the threat to life as well as committing
grievous hurt. The learned Trial Court Judge was of an
opinion that merely by relying on the evidence of single
witness, all the accused cannot be made liable. The
assessment of the evidence should be on the basis of all the
evidence on the overall appreciation.
5.6 The learned Trial Court Judge has further observed
that Kanjibhai Ramabhai Parmar at Exh.16 had not stated
of any such threat to life and even Valjibhai Ranchhodbhai
Parmar had not supported the evidence of threat to life to
the complainant. The learned Judge has observed that there
is contradiction in the evidence of the witnesses and
therefore, the learned Judge did not believe the case of
threat to life to the complainant and the witnesses, since
the learned Judge had come to the conclusion that there
was contradictory evidence, hence, the case under Section
506(2) of the IPC was not disbelieved.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1790/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/07/2025
undefined
6. This Court on perusal of the evidence on record is of
the similar view that when the evidence are contradictory in
nature of the witnesses, who claim themselves to be the
eyewitnesses to the incident and if those witnesses do not
corroborate the evidence of the complainant and if the
witnesses are more than one, then the prosecution is
required to bring consistency in the evidence of all the
witnesses. Merely, one of the witness supporting the
complainant would not bring the case to be considered as
proved beyond reasonable doubt, when the evidence of the
complainant itself becomes partly doubtful.
6.1 Further allegation is under Section 3(1)(x) of the
Atrocities Act, whereas the case is of lowering down the
dignity of the complainant by making casteist remark. This
allegation is against deceased accused - Mathurbhai
Maganbhai, whose appeal has been abated because of his
death. The learned Judge has not found such fact of
accused lowering down the dignity of the complainant -
Bharatkumar Manilal Parmar considering him as a member
of S.C.- S.T. community. The learned Judge has found that
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1790/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/07/2025
undefined
there was no such intention of deceased accused -
Mathurbhai Maganbhai.
7. This Court has not entered into the details of the facts
against accused - Mathurbhai Maganbhai, since the appeal
of the accused - Mathurbhai Maganbhai stood abated
because of his death, but on those evidence on record, the
fact becomes appreciable that there is no such allegation
against other co-accused of abusing the complainant -
Bharatkumar Manilal Parmar by his caste. There is no
allegation that other co-accused have lower down the
dignity by making any casteist remarks, hence, the learned
Judge has not found any case under Section 3(1)(x) of the
Atrocities Act. Section 3(1)(x) of the Atrocities Act reads as
under:
"3(1)(x) Intentionally insults or intimidates with intent to
humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled
Tribe in any place within public view."
7.1 Likewise, on perusal of the evidence of the witnesses,
this Court has also not found any such evidence stated by
the witnesses of any abusive words uttered by rest of the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1790/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/07/2025
undefined
accused.
7.2 Section 3(1)(xiv) of the Atrocities Act reads as under:
"3(1)(xiv) denies a member of a Scheduled Caste or a
Scheduled Tribe any customary right of passage to a place
of public resort or obstructs such member so as to prevent
him from using or having access to a place of public resort
to which other members of public or any section thereof
have a right to use or access to."
8. The case of the prosecution is that accused -
Mathurbhai Maganbhai restrained the complainant and the
witnesses to enter goddess Verai temple, while the evidence
are of contradictory in nature. The specific allegation is
against accused - Mathurbhai Maganbhai, and Mathurbhai
Maganbhai was found guilty under Section 3(1)(xiv) against
which he filed an appeal before this Court, which stood
abated. There is no allegation against rest of the accused to
have restrained the complainant and other witnesses to
enter the temple. There is no satisfactory evidence of the
witnesses to suggest that rest of the accused Nos.2 to 8 had
restrained the complainant to pay his respect in the goddess
Verai temple. The learned Judge has rightly observed the
same.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1790/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/07/2025
undefined
9. In the case of Darshan Singh Vs. State of Punjab [2024
(3) SCC 164], the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:
"61. In a case of acquittal, if the trial court's view is a
possible or plausible view, then the Appellate Court or the
High Court would not be justified in interfering with it. It is
the settled legal position that there is presumption of
innocence and that presumption is further fortified with the
acquittal of the accused by the trial court. The Appellate
Court or the High Court would not be justified in reversing
the judgment of acquittal unless it comes to a clear
conclusion that the judgment of the trial court is utterly
perverse and, on the basis of the evidence on record, no
other view is plausible or possible than the one taken by the
Appellate Court or the High Court."
9.1 In the case of Kallu Vs. State of M.P., [(2006) 10 SCC
313], the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:
"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
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1790/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/07/2025
undefined
should assign reasons for differing with the decision of the
trial court."
9.2 The judgment of Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka
(2007) 4 SCC 415, would be relevant to be mentioned since
the judgment lays down the general principles for the
consideration of the acquittal appeals. The Supreme Court
has held thus:
The following general principles regarding powers of the
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 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.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1790/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/07/2025
undefined
(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 is
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 and one favourable to the
accused has been taken by the trial court, it ought not to be
disturbed by the appellate court.
10. In view of the observations and reasons given above,
this Court does not find any case for setting aside the
acquittal of the respondents. In the result, the appeal fails
and stands dismissed. Record & Proceedings be sent back
to the concerned trial Court forthwith.
(GITA GOPI,J)
Pankaj/27
