Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Ibrahimbhai Karimbhai Belim on 2 July, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/263/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/07/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 263 of 2011
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE S.V. PINTO
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting No
==========================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
IBRAHIMBHAI KARIMBHAI BELIM & 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
MR NEERAJ SONI(3433) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 5
MR. HARDEEP L MAHIDA(7112) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No.
1,2,3,4
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE S.V. PINTO
Date : 02/07/2025
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 Additional Sessions Judge, Vadodara (hereinafter
referred to as "the learned Trial Court") in Atro (Special)
Case No. 24/2008 on 01.11.2010, whereby, the learned
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/263/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/07/2025
undefined
Trial Court has acquitted the respondents extending benefit
of doubt for the offence punishable under Sections 504 and
114 of IPC, Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act and
Section 3(1)(10) of Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to
as "the Act" for short).
1.1 The respondents are hereinafter referred to as "the
accused" 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 complainant - Jashodaben alias Bhartiben - wife
of Sureshbhai Dayabhai Rohit and the accused were
neighbours and residing at village Anastu, Taluka Karjan.
On 28.07.2007, at around 09.30 am, the accused were
allowing water from the open place of their house to flow
into the open space behind the house of the complainant
and the complainant told them to restrict the flow of water
but all the accused got together and insulted the
complainant and abused her and used caste slurs against
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/263/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/07/2025
undefined
her. Later on, when the complainant went to buy vegetables,
the accused ran after her and threatened to cut her to
pieces and the accused nos. 1 and 2 were armed with
swords at the time of the incident. The complainant filed the
complaint at the Karjan Police Station under Sections 143,
144, 147, 148, 504 of the IPC, Section 135 of the BP Act
and Section 3(1)(10) of the Atrocity Act which was registered
at Karjan Police Station I - C.R. No. 47 of 2007.
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, Karjan and as the said offences
against the accused were exclusively triable by the Court of
Sessions, the case was committed to the Sessions Court,
Vadodara as per the provisions of Section 209 of Code of
Criminal Procedure and the case was registered as Atro
(Special) Case No. 24/2008.
2.3 The accused were duly served with the summons and
the accused appeared before the learned Trial Court and it
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/263/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/07/2025
undefined
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. 8 was framed against the
accused and the statements of the accused was recorded at
Exhs. 9, 10, 11 and 12 wherein, the accused denied the
contents of the charge and the entire evidence of the
prosecution was taken on record.
2.4 The prosecution produced the following evidence to
bring home the charge against the accused.
ORAL EVIDENCE
Sr. No. PW Name of the witness Exh.
DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE
Sr. No. Particulars Exh.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/263/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/07/2025
undefined
2.5 After the learned APP filed the closing pursis, the
further statements 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. The accused refused to step into the witness box or
examine witnesses on their behalf and stated that a false
case has been filed against them. After the arguments of the
learned APP 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
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/263/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/07/2025
undefined
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
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, learned advocate Mr. H.L. Mahida for the
respondent nos. 1 to 4 and learned advocate Mr. Neeraj
Soni for the respondent no. 5. Perused the impugned
judgement and order of acquittal and have reappreciated
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/263/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/07/2025
undefined
the entire evidence of the prosecution on record of the case.
5. Learned APP Mr. Pranav Dhagat and learned advocate
Mr. Neeraj Soni for the respondent no. 5 have taken this
Court through the entire evidence of the prosecution on
record of the case and have submitted that the complainant
has fully 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. H.L. Mahida for the respondent
nos. 1 to 4 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
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/263/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/07/2025
undefined
& 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 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
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/263/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/07/2025
undefined
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.
(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.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/263/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/07/2025
undefined
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
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 of the above settled principle of law, the
evidence of the prosecution is dissected and the
prosecution has examined PW1 - Jashodaben Sureshbhai
at Exh. 18 and the witness is the complainant and she has
stated that she belongs to the Scheduled Caste and has
produced her caste certificate at Exh. 19. The witness has
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/263/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/07/2025
undefined
also produced the caste certificate of her husband at Exh.
20. The witness has stated that there is a civil litigation
pending before the Civil Court, Karjan regarding the open
space behind her house with the accused and on
28.02.2007, the incident had occurred at around 09.30 am
while she was doing the work of her buffaloes and the dirty
water from the house of the accused had come into the
place where she had tied her buffaloes. She told the
accused no. 1 to restrict the use of water but all the
accused came and abused her. That thereafter, she was
going to the village to buy vegetables and as she reached
near the shop of the accused no. 1, the accused nos. 1 and
2 came armed with swords running towards her and
threatened her and abused her. The complaint was filed at
the Karjan Police Station which is produced at Exh. 21.
During the cross-examination by the learned advocate for
the accused, the witness has stated that the dispute about
the open space is still pending before the Civil Court at
Karjan and her mother-in-law had earlier filed a complaint
under the Atrocity Act against the accused which was
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/263/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/07/2025
undefined
rejected. The shop of Jigabhai Rabari is near the shop of
the accused no. 1 and the residences of Ganpatbhai,
Hiteshbhai Madhavbhai, Shivabhai Trikambhai, Naranbhai
Devjibhai are near the shop of the accused no. 1. The
complaint was written in the handwriting of her husband
and in the complaint she had named Fatimaben also.
Fatimaben is residing next to the accused no. 1 and when
she had gone to file the complaint, she did not take the
court papers with her. She had purchased the disputed
property from Rasulbhai Gulambhai and there is a case
pending in the Civil Court at Karjan stating that she had
illegally encroached on the property.
8.1 The prosecution has examined PW2 - Dahyabhai
Ambalal Rohit at Exh. 28 and the witness has stated that
on 28.02.2007 the incident had occurred at around 09.30
am. At the time of the incident his daughter-in-law -
Joshodaben Sureshbhai - the complainant was alone at
home and when she went to buy vegetables, the accused
no. 1 and the accused no. 2 ran behind her with swords.
That his daughter-in-law came to the field and informed
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/263/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/07/2025
undefined
him about the incident. During the cross-examination by
the learned advocate for the accused the witness has stated
that earlier a similar kind of a complaint was filed and he
and Rabiyaben were witnesses in that case. There are a
number of persons residing besides the house of the
accused and Salimbhai Karimbhai, Iqbalbhai Karimbhai,
Chiragbhai Karimbhai, Shivabhai Trikambhai, Ganpatbhai
Dhanjibhai and Narayanbhai Dhanjibhai have their
residential houses near the house of the accused no. 1. At
the time of the incident he was at his field and is not an eye
witness to the incident.
8.2 The prosecution has examined PW3 - Rabiyaben
Sikandarbhai Belim and the witness has stated that the
incident has occurred at around 09.30 am and the
complainant Bhartiben asked the accused no. 1 why he
was allowing dirty water to flow in the open space behind
her house and at that time the accused hurled caste slurs
and abused Bhartiben and after some time Bhartiben was
going to buy vegetables and at that time the accused nos. 1
and 2 took swords and ran behind her. During the cross-
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/263/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/07/2025
undefined
examination by the learned advocate for the accused the
witness has stated that Heeraben had earlier filed a similar
complaint against the accused and she was a witness in
that case also. That when the incident had occurred she
was in her house and was cooking and at the place of
incident are the houses of other persons also. At the time of
the incident many persons had gathered and as they were
of the village she does not know them. At at the time of the
incident she was alone in her house and she heard some
sounds and came outside and found a whole crowd of
people gathered at that place.
8.3 The prosecution has examined PW4 - Sureshbhai
Dayabhai at Exh. 31 and the witness is the husband of the
complainant who has supported the case of the prosecution
and the contents of the complaint. The witness has stated
that on the date of the incident which occurred on
28.02.2007 at around 09.30 am, he had left for his field at
around 07.00 am along with his parents and his wife was
alone at home and his wife came to the field and told them
about the incident. During the cross-examination by the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/263/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/07/2025
undefined
learned for the accused the witness has stated that his
mother had filed a case under the Atrocity Act against the
accused and he and Rabiyaben were witnesses in that case.
Dayabhai was also a witness and at the time of that
incident also his mother was alone at home. That in the
case filed by his mother, all the accused were acquitted and
they were given a notice for recovery of the amount of
compensation paid to them. Sikandarbhai is the husband
of Rabiyaben and he has filed a case against the accused
and there was a case before the Karjan Court regarding the
open space which was decreed in favour of the accused and
the case number was Regular Civil Suit No. 56 of 2003. The
accused had also filed Regular Civil Suit No. 75 of 2003 and
which was decreed in their favour and no appeal is filed in
that case.
8.4 The prosecution has examined PW5 - Vakhatsinh
Mansinh at Exh. 32 and the witness has stated that he was
working as a PSO at Karjan Police Station on 28.02.2007
and the complainant came with a written complaint against
six persons and the case was registered under Sections
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/263/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/07/2025
undefined
143, 144, 147, 148, 504 of the IPC and Section 135 of the
BP Act and Section 3(1)(10) Atrocity Act at Karjan Police
Station I - C.R. No. 47 of 2007.
8.5 PW6 - Belim Muhammadbhai Hassanbhai examined
at Exh. 35 is the panch witness of the panchnama of the
place of offence which is produced at Exh. 36 and the
witness has fully supported the contents of the panchnama.
8.6 The prosecution has examined PW7 - Dhawal
Ramanbhai Patel at Exh. 37 and PW8 - Amitbhai Vithalbhai
Patel at Exh. 39. Both the witnesses are the panch
witnesses of the arrest panchnama by which the accused
were arrested which is produced at Exh. 44. The witnesses
have stated that the Karjan Police had called them to the
Police Station and had asked them to affix their signature
and besides that they do not know any facts about the
panchnama. Both the witnesses have not supported the
case of the prosecution and have been declared hostile and
have been cross examined at length but nothing to support
the case of the prosecution has come on record.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/263/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/07/2025
undefined
8.7 The prosecution has examined PW9 - Veerjibhai
Jeevabhai Katara at Exh. 43 and the witness is the
Investigating Officer who has narrated in detail the
procedure undertaken by him during investigation. During
the cross-examination by the learned advocate for the
accused, the witness has stated that the complainant had
given her caste certificate and the dispute was regarding
the water flowing into the open space. There are civil
disputes between the parties pending before the Civil Court,
Karjan but no documents to that effect were produced
before him. That he does not know how many cases under
the Atrocity Act were filed by the complainant against the
accused.
9. On minute appreciation of the entire evidence of the
prosecution the evidence of PW2 - Dahyabhai Ambalal
Rahit - father-in-law of the complainant and PW4 -
Sureshbhai Dahyabhai - the husband of the complainant
are interested witnesses and there is evidence that there
are civil disputes pending between the parties. Admittedly,
at the time of the incident the complainant was alone at
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/263/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/07/2025
undefined
home and her husband, father-in-law and mother-in-law
were in the field and they are not eyewitnesses to the
incident. From the evidence that has emerged on record it
transpires that the place where the incident occurred is a
residential area and there are the residences of many
persons and the second incident where the complainant
was going into the village to buy vegetables and the accused
nos. 1 and 2 ran after her with swords and threatened her,
has occurred in the market place where there are the shops
and residence of a number of persons but no independent
witnesses, either neighbors of the complainant and accused
or persons in the market or the shopkeepers have been
examined as witnesses before the learned Trial Court. The
evidence is also on record that Heeraben - the mother-in-
law of the complainant, Jashodaben alias Bhartiben had
also filed a case under the Atrocities Act against the
accused and at that time also she was alone at home and
the learned Trial Court has acquitted the accused in that
case also. There is no independent evidence except for the
evidence of PW3 - Rabiyaben Sikandarbhai Belim but
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/263/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/07/2025
undefined
during the cross-examination it has emerged that
Rabiyaben was also a witness in the earlier case filed by
Hiraben under the Atrocities Act against the accused and
the accused had filed a case against her husband and she
too is an interested witness. There is no evidence about the
caste slurs uttered by the accused or the threats and
abuses given by the accused to 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/263/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/07/2025
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 Additional Sessions Judge, Vadodara
in Atro (Special) Case No. 24/2008 on 01.11.2010, is
hereby confirmed.
12. Bail bond stands cancelled. Record and proceedings
be sent back to the concerned Trial Court forthwith.
(S. V. PINTO,J)
VASIM S. SAIYED
