Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Laxmanji Sadaji Thakor on 5 July, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/979/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/07/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 979 of 2010
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. C. DOSHI
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
LAXMANJI SADAJI THAKOR & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS ASMITA PATEL, ADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the Appellant
MR RH THAKKER(5825) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1
MR VR HALANI(6169) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1
RULE SERVED for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. C. DOSHI
Date : 05/07/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and
order of acquittal dated 8.10.2009 passed by the learned
Presiding Officer and Addl. Sessions Judge, 2 nd Fast Track Court,
Deesa camp at Deodar in Special Case No.70 of 2008, whereby
the respondent accused came to be acquitted for the offences
under sections 323, 504, 506(2) of Indian Penal Code and under
section 3(1)(x) of the Atrocities Act, the appellant - State has
preferred present appeal under section 378 of the Code of
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/979/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/07/2025
undefined
Criminal Procedure, 1973 ("the Code" for short).
2. The prosecution case in nutshell is that on 4.9.2007, the
accused drove tractor to the area dominating by the people of
SC/ST community and spoke filthy language to the complainant
on his caste and also passed threat of dire consequences. The
accused also beaten the complainant and thereby, committed
aforestated offence.
3. In pursuance of the complainant lodged by the
complainant with the concerned Police Station for the aforesaid
offences, the investigating agency recorded statements of the
witnesses, drawn panchnama of scene of offence, discovery and
recovery of weapons and obtained FSL report etc. for the purpose
of proving the offence. After having found sufficient material
against the respondent accused, charge-sheet came to be filed in
the Court of learned JMFC. As said Court lacks jurisdiction to
try the offence, it committed the case to the Sessions Court,
Ahmedabad City as provided under section 209 of the Code.
4. Upon committal of the case to the Sessions Court,
Palanpur, learned Sessions Judge framed charge at Exh.5
against the respondent accused for the aforesaid offences. The
respondent accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
5. In order to bring home charge, the prosecution has
examined 6 witnesses and also produced various documentary
evidence before the learned trial Court, more particularly
described in para 5 of the impugned judgment and order.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/979/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/07/2025
undefined
6. On conclusion of evidence on the part of the prosecution,
the trial Court put various incriminating circumstances
appearing in the evidence to the respondent accused so as to
obtain explanation/answer as provided u/s 313 of the Code. In
the further statement, the respondent accused denied all
incriminating circumstances appearing against him as false and
further stated that he is innocent and false case has been filed
against him.
7. We have heard learned APP for the appellant - State,
learned advocate Ms. Vaibhavi Raval for learned advocate for the
respondent accused and minutely examined oral and
documentary evidence adduced before the learned Trial Court.
8. In background of above, if we re-examine the evidence
recorded during the trial, the prosecution examined complainant
PW 1 Mr. Ratilal Nanji at Exh.10. In his deposition, he has
categorically stated that he has not been beaten by the accused
nor the accused has used filthy language to lower down his caste
and therefore, he was declared turned hostile as he did not
support the case of the prosecution. However, he supports the
case to the effect that he has been derogated on the caste by
speaking specific words. He has been thoroughly cross-
examined. What could be noticed from his deposition that apart
from he and his wife, he did not claim that any third party was
present on the spot and in presence of third party, derogatory
words are spoken to lower down his caste.
9. Witness Jivabhai Nanji - the real brother of the
complainant, has been examined as PW2. He has categorically
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/979/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/07/2025
undefined
deposed that the accused was speaking filthy language and was
also speaking particular words to him to derogate him on his
caste. In chief examination, he also deposed that the accused
has passed threat and also spoken derogatory words along with
passing the threat. In cross examination, he admitted that at the
time of incident, he was at his home. He also admitted that when
he reached to the spot of the incident, there was a mob of about
25-50 people and he could not say that which were the persons
on the spot who were speaking filthy language. He has also
admitted that he has not mentioned specific words used by the
accused derogating him and his brother on the caste in his
police statement. Evaluating the evidence of the witnesses, what
could be noticed that he was not the person on the spot. He was
not present on the spot when the incident took place and
secondly, when he reached to the spot of an incident, there was
a mob of about 25-50 people gathered around and he has
improvised his version from the police statement. The words
which he spoke in his deposition has not stated in the police
statement.
10. Another witness PW 3 Alabhai Dalit was examined by the
prosecution at Exh.14. He also declared turn hostile. According
to his chief examination, upon various shouts and callings, he
went to the spot of the incident. He has deposited that at that
time, the accused and his brother were fighting with each other
and each of them are speaking filthy language to each other. He
separated both of them and at that time, the accused was
leaving the place by passing threat. He was turned hostile as far
as the act of atrocity is concerned, but thereafter in cross
examination done by the accused, he said that in his police
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/979/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/07/2025
undefined
statement, he has mentioned that the accused was speaking filth
to the complainant and also the accused was derogating the
complainant for his caste. In cross examation, he has admitted
that when he reached to the place of the incident, 25 to 50
people were already gathered there and some third parties who
are not belonging to the SC/ST community were also present
there. He has also admitted that when he reached at the spot,
the incident has already over.
11. Witness PW 4 Dariyaben - wife of the complainant has
been examined by the prosecution at Exh.15, in which she
deposed that when the incident of altercation took place between
her husband and accused and they were speaking filthy
language to each other, she rushed to call her brother-in-law
and other persons, and when she reached to the spot of the
incident, she has seen that her husband was beaten by the
accused and she was also beaten by giving kick and fist blows
and the accused was passing threat for dire consequences. In
her chief examination, this witness did not speak anything about
act of offence under the Atrocity Act, but once she turned hostile
in a cross-examination done by the learned APP, she stated that
in her police statement, she has mentioned that the accused was
speaking filthy language and was also derogating the
complainant on the caste. In cross examination, she has
admitted that at the time of incident, she, her husband and
accused only three persons were present on the spot and apart
from that, no other person were present. Thereafter the
prosection has led the evidence of PSO and investigating officer.
12. What could be noticed on perusal of the evidence that the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/979/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/07/2025
undefined
victim of the alleged incident did not speak about kick and fist
blows and injuries received thereof. Admittedly, the complainant
has not taken any treatment from the medical officer. The
prosecution has not investigated in this aspect. No evidence is
produced on record, which shows that the complainant who has
received injury as per the prosecution case has led any shot of
evidence, which indicates that the complainant has received
injury. As stated hereinabove, the complainant himself admitted
that no such incident has happened, whereby the accused has
given kick and fist blows to him. In aforesaid circumstances,
possibility of hurt administered to the complainant defined
under section 3(1)(x) of the Atrocity Act is ruled out. Admittedly,
at the time of incident, the complainant, his wife and accused
only three persons were present. A specific word, according to
the complainant was spoken to dogogate him on his caste.
However, the wife of the complainant, who is also present on the
spot of the incident, turned hostile on this aspect, and she did
not support the case of the prosecution to the effect that the
accused has spoken a particular derogatory word to lower down
the caste of the complainant. There is no cavil that the
complainant belongs to the SC/ST community. There is a charge
of office under section 3(1)(x) of the Atrocity Act, which reads as
under:-
Section 3(1)(x) in The Scheduled Castes and the
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989
(x)corrupts or fouls the water of any spring, reservoir
or any other source ordinarily used by members of
the Scheduled Castes or the Scheduled Tribes so as
to render it less fit for the purpose for which it is
ordinarily used;"
13. Explaining the provision of section 3(1)(x) of the Atrocity
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/979/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/07/2025
undefined
Act, in case of Georige Pentaiah v/s. State of Andra Pradesh
[2008 (12) SCC 531], the Hon'ble Apex Court held and observed
that complainant ought to alleged that accused are not member
of SC /ST caste and he was intentionally insulted or intimidated
by the accused with intent to humiliate in place within public
view. In the present case, admittedly, there is no public view.
Apart from the complainant, his wife and the accused, no third
persons were present on the spot. Therefore, even if, it is
believed that certain words are spoke to derogate or hamber the
complainant on his caste, the prosecution failed to prove that it
was intentional and spoken with an intention to hamper the
complainant. In view of this, according to this Court, the offence
of Atrocities Act is not made out.
14. So far as offences punishable under the IPC are concerned,
there cannot be an intentional insult with an intent to provoke
breach of peace. These essential ingredients are totally lacking
on reading the FIR as well as all the evidence on record. At no
point of time, it comes on record that because of intentional
insult by the accused, the complainant was provoked to break
public peace or to commit any other offence. In the present
case, first of all, the complainant himself admitted that he has
not been beaten or has received any type of injury and secondly,
the entire evidence discussed herein above failed to bring the
case within four corners of "with an intent to cause alarm to the
complainant". In view of above, according to this Court, the
learned trial Court has not committed any error in acquitting the
accused.
15. What could be noticeable that the learned trial Court in the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/979/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/07/2025
undefined
impugned judgment has thoroughly evaluated the evidence of
the prosecution and ascribed reasons that how the prosecution
case fell short of achieving standard of "beyond reasonable
doubt". The findings of the learned trial Court also indicate
about existence of sheer contradiction and improvisation in the
deposition of star witnesses and became root cause to stultify
prosecution case. In view of above, this Court finds no
sufficient material to interfere with the impugned judgment
and order of recording acquittal.
16. To be noted that since the trial court's judgment
acquitted the accused, reinforce the presumption of
innocence, the appellant State needs to present a much
stronger case to overturn the original verdict and secure a
conviction.
17. It is a cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence that in
an acquittal appeal if other view is possible, then also, the
appellate Court cannot substitute its own view by reversing the
acquittal into conviction, unless the findings of the trial Court
are perverse, contrary to the material on record, palpably wrong,
manifestly erroneous or demonstrably unsustainable. (Ramesh
Babulal Doshi V. State of Gujarat (1996) 9 SCC 225). In the
instant case, the learned APP for the applicant has not been able
to point out to us as to how the findings recorded by the learned
trial Court are perverse, contrary to material on record, palpably
wrong, manifestly erroneous or demonstrably unsustainable.
18. In the case of Ram Kumar v. State of Haryana, reported in
AIR 1995 SC 280, Supreme Court has held as under:
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/979/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/07/2025
undefined
"The powers of the High Court in an appeal from order of
acquittal to reassess the evidence and reach its own
conclusions under Sections 378 and 379, Cr.P.C. are as
extensive as in any appeal against the order of conviction.
But as a rule of prudence, it is desirable that the High Court
should give proper weight and consideration to the view of
the Trial Court with regard to the credibility of the witness,
the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused, the
right of the accused to the benefit of any doubt and the
slowness of appellate Court in justifying a finding of fact
arrived at by a Judge who had the advantage of seeing the
witness. It is settled law that if the main grounds on which
the lower Court has based its order acquitting the accused
are reasonable and plausible, and the same cannot entirely
and effectively be dislodged or demolished, the High Court
should not disturb the order of acquittal."
19. As observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Rajesh Singh & Others vs. State of Uttar Pradesh reported in
(2011) 11 SCC 444 and in the case of Bhaiyamiyan Alias Jardar
Khan and Another vs. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in
(2011) 6 SCC 394, while dealing with the judgment of acquittal,
unless reasoning by the learned trial Court is found to be
perverse, the acquittal cannot be upset. It is further observed
that High Court's interference in such appeal in somewhat
circumscribed and if the view taken by the learned trial Court is
possible on the evidence, the High Court should stay its hands
and not interfere in the matter in the belief that if it had been the
trial Court, it might have taken a different view.
20. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the
case and law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court while
considering the scope of appeal under Section 378 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, no case is made out to interfere with the
impugned judgment and order of acquittal.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/979/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/07/2025
undefined
21. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above,
present Criminal Appeal deserves to be dismissed and is
accordingly dismissed. Bail bond stands cancelled.
(J. C. DOSHI,J)
SHEKHAR P. BARVE
