Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Gelabhai @ Ghelabhai Merubhai Rabari on 30 July, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/776/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/07/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 776 of 2011
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE S.V. PINTO
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting No
==========================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
GELABHAI @ GHELABHAI MERUBHAI RABARI & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS. C.M. SHAH, APP for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR HARSHAD K PATEL(2844) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1
NOTICE SERVED for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE S.V. PINTO
Date : 30/07/2025
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 and 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Nadiad
(hereinafter referred to as "the learned Trial Court") in
Special (SCST) Case No. 32/2010 on 15.03.2011, whereby,
the learned Trial Court has acquitted the respondent for the
offence punishable under Sections 354, 323, 504 and 506(2)
of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 3(1)(10) of Schedule
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/776/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/07/2025
undefined
Caste and Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,
1989 (hereinafter referred to as "the Atrocity Act" for short).
1.1 The respondent is hereinafter referred to as "the
accused" as he 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 On 29.10.2009, at around 09.30 am, the complainant
- Sonalben Kalidas Mahida and her mother - Ramilaben
Kalidas Mahida were going to wash clothes near the canal at
village Akhlacha and the accused came on his motorcycle
near the complainant and started abusing the complainant
and asked her why she had filed an application against him.
The accused also threatened that he would disrepute her
name in the village in such a way that she would not be able
to show her face and also told her to compromise with him
and have a relationship with him. The accused gave the
complainant one slap on her right cheek and caused hurt to
the complainant and the complainant filed a complaint at
the Mehemdabad Police Station under Sections 354, 323,
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/776/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/07/2025
undefined
504, 506(2) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 3(1)
(10)(11) of the Atrocity Act which came to be registered at
Mehemdabad Police Station I - C.R. No. 265 of 2009.
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, Mehemdabad and as the said
offences against the accused were exclusively triable by the
Court of Sessions, the case was committed to the Sessions
Court, Kheda at Nadiad as per the provisions of Section 209
of Code of Criminal Procedure and the case was registered
as Special (SCST) Case No. 32/2010.
2.3 The accused was 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. 4 was framed against the
accused and the statement of the accused was recorded at
Exh. 5, wherein, the accused denied the contents of the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/776/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/07/2025
undefined
charge and the entire evidence of the prosecution was taken
on record.
2.4 The prosecution examined 10 witnesses and produced
8 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
during the cross-examination, nothing adverse has been
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/776/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/07/2025
undefined
elicited in favor of the respondent. The case has been proved
beyond reasonable doubt and the prosecution has
successfully established the case against the respondent
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 Ms. C.M. Shah for the appellant
State and learned advocate Mr. Manish Acharya for learned
advocate Mr. H.K. Patel. Though served, none has appeared
on behalf of the respondent no. 2 to make any submissions.
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
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/776/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/07/2025
undefined
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.
5.1 Learned advocate Mr. Manish Acharya for the
respondent no. 1 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.
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
& 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
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/776/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/07/2025
undefined
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
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
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/776/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/07/2025
undefined
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 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
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/776/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/07/2025
undefined
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 bring home the charge against the accused, the
prosecution has examined the complainant - PW1 -
Sonalben Kalidas Mahida at Exh. 10 and she has mainly
stated the contents of the complaint which is produced at
Exh. 13. The complainant has produced her caste
certificate at Exh. 11. During the cross-examination by the
learned advocate for the accused, the complainant has
stated that the accused resides at village Akalacha, a little
away from the house of the complainant and is doing the
business of cattle rearing. The goats and sheep of the
accused graze in the area behind the house of the
complainant. Moreover, at the time of the incident, it was
the month of October and the labourers were working in
the field, harvesting the crop. Her father did not accompany
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/776/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/07/2025
undefined
her on the date of the incident and she was provided with
police protection after the incident.
8.1 PW2 - Kalidas Bhulabhai Mahida examined at Exh. 15
is the father of the complainant and in the examination in
chief, he has stated that the incident occurred and at the
time of the incident, the accused caught hold of the hand of
the complainant, and hurled caste slurs against her.
During the cross-examination by the learned advocate for
the accused, the witness has stated that after his wife and
daughter had gone to go to wash clothes at the pond, he left
his house after five minutes and the accused met him near
the high school. The witness has also admitted that there is
an area behind his house where they grow vegetables and
has also admitted that his daughter was not married in
their community but was married to a person from the
Christian community.
8.2 PW3 - Ramilaben Kalidas Mahida examined at Exh. 17
is the mother of the complainant who was accompanying
the complainant on the date of the incident and she too has
supported the facts of the complaint. During the cross-
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/776/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/07/2025
undefined
examination by the learned advocate for the accused, the
witness has admitted that the accused resides near their
house and they grow vegetables behind their house and the
goats and sheep of the accused damage those crops. At the
time of the incident, there were labourers working in the
fields and her husband came five minutes after the incident.
The witness has also admitted that her daughter to a person
was married in the Christian community.
8.3 PW4 - Jeetendrabhai Kalidas Mahida examined at Exh.
18 is the brother of the complainant who has supported the
case of the prosecution and has also stated that the accused
had caught hold of the hand of his sister. During the cross-
examination by the learned advocate for the accused, the
witness has admitted to growing vegetables and pulses
behind their house and goats and sheep of the accused
come to that area and cause damage. The witness has also
admitted that his father had a dispute with the accused
regarding the cattle entering into the area and damaging
their crops and at the time of the incident, there were others
from the village who were also going to wash clothes but he
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/776/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/07/2025
undefined
is not a witness to the incident.
8.4 PW5 - Dr. Dineshbhai Ramanbhai Patel examined at
Exh. 21 is the Medical Officer who was on duty at
Nagarpalika General Hospital, Mehmedabad on the date of
the incident. The witness has stated that on 30.10.2009 at
around 11.00 am, the complainant Sonalben Kalidas
Mahida had come for treatment and she had a history of
assault. On examination, she had a contusion over right
side of the chest, an injury over right side of the chest and
besides that, she did not have any other injuries. During the
cross-examination, the witness has admitted that the police
yadi for treatment was given on 29.10.2009 and the patient
had come on 30.10.2009. In the medical certificate
produced at Exh. 23, the injury is not shown and the
patient did not say that she was slapped on her cheek.
8.5 PW6 - Ambalal Chhotabhai Patel examined at Exh. 24
is the panch witness of the panchnama of the place of
offence, which is produced at Exh. 25. As per the
panchnama, the place of offence is the RCC Road going
towards the High School of Akalacha village on the left side
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/776/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/07/2025
undefined
of the road going from Rudan to Khatraj Crossroads.
8.6 PW7 - Somabhai Fatabhai Jadhav examined at Exh.
26 and PW8 - Ashokbhai Chandulal Parmar examined at
Exh. 30 are the panch witnesses of the arrest panchnama
produced at Exh. 27. Both the witnesses have not
supported the case of the prosecution and have been
declared hostile.
8.7 PW9 - Jaisinghbhai Ranchodbhai Chauhan examined
at Exh. 32 is the PSO who has recorded the complaint of the
complainant and thereafter registered the same. During the
cross examination, the witness has stated that the place of
offence was not exactly mentioned in the complaint. The
witness has produced the extract of the Station Diary at
Exh. 33.
8.8 PW10 - Poonambhai Shanabhai Baranda examined at
Exh. 35 is the Investigating Officer who has narrated the
procedure undertaken by him during investigation. During
cross examination, the witness has admitted that the
complainant was married in Ahmedabad and was residing
at her father's house and he did not investigate whether the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/776/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/07/2025
undefined
complainant was a member of the Scheduled Caste or not.
The witness has admitted that the complainant was married
to a person in the Christian community and the caste
certificate produced is dated 10.06.2002 but he cannot for
sure say whether the complainant was a member of the
Scheduled Caste or not.
9. Upon minute appreciation of the entire evidence of the
prosecution, in the complaint produced at Exh. 12, the
complainant has stated that she was slapped and abused
but PW2 - Kalidas Bhulabhai Mahida - the father of the
complainant, PW3 - Ramilaben Kalidas Mahida - the
mother of the complainant and PW4 - Jeetendrabhai
Kalidas Mahida - the brother of the complainant have all
stated that the accused had caught hold of the hand of the
complainant. At the time of the incident, PW3 - Ramilaben
Kalidas Mahida was with the complainant and the father
and brother of the complainant were not eyewitnesses to
the incident and there appears to be a huge exaggeration in
the evidence of the father and brother of the complainant.
Moreover, it has also emerged on record that the incident
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/776/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/07/2025
undefined
has occurred on 29.10.2009 and the Yadi for treatment was
given on 29.10.2009 but the complainant had gone for
treatment to the Nagarpalika General Hospital on
30.10.2007 at 11.00 a.m. As per the medical certificate
produced at Exh. 23, a contusion was over the right side of
the chest of the complainant but there was no mention of
any assault by the accused on the chest of the complainant
in the complaint. Moreover, in the deposition of the
complainant, she has not stated that the accused had
hurled any caste slurs against her and in the entire
evidence, it has emerged that there is an area behind the
house of the complainant where they grow vegetables and
pulses and the accused who is in the business of cattle
rearing has goats and sheep and the cattle would enter into
this area and damage the crops of the family of the
complainant. It has also emerged that on the previous day,
the cattle had entered and damaged the crops and there
was a dispute between the father of the complainant and
the accused regarding the damage done to the crops. It has
also emerged on record that there were other people going
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/776/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/07/2025
undefined
to the pond to wash clothes and the area as per the place of
offence as mentioned in the panchnama produced at Exh.
25 is a public place where a number of persons would be
passing by but no independent witnesses have been
examined by the prosecution. If the complaint produced at
Exh. 12 is produced, there is no exact place of offence
mentioned by the complainant and all the evidence has
been appreciated 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
illegality or infirmity has been committed by the learned
Trial Court and this Court is in complete agreement with
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/776/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/07/2025
undefined
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 and 3 rd Additional
Sessions Judge, Nadiad in Special (SCST) Case No.
32/2010 on 15.03.2011, 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
