Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Pravinbhai Ishwarbhai Bhagat on 9 July, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/697/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/07/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 697 of 2011
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE S.V. PINTO
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting No
==========================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
PRAVINBHAI ISHWARBHAI BHAGAT & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR. PRANAV DHAGAT, APP for the Appellant(s) No. 1
ABATED for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1
ADVOCATE NOTICE SERVED for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 4
ADVOCATE NOTICE UNSERVED for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 2
RULE UNSERVED for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 3
UNSERVED EXPIRED (N) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 5
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE S.V. PINTO
Date : 09/07/2025
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 and Presiding Officer,
Fast Track Court No. 5, Vadodara (hereinafter referred to as
"the learned Trial Court") in Atrocity Case No. 49/2009 on
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/697/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/07/2025
undefined
01.04.2011, whereby, the learned Trial Court has acquitted
the respondents extending benefit of doubt for the offence
punishable under Sections 323, 504 and 114 of IPC and
Section 3(1)(10) of Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to
as "the Atrocity Act" for short).
1.1 During the pendency of the appeal, the respondent no.
1 had expired and hence, by an order dated 25.11.2024, the
appeal qua the respondent no. 1 was abated.
1.2 The respondents are hereinafter referred to as "the
accused" in the rank and file 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 On 18.09.2009, the complainant - Vijaybhai
Bhailalbhai Vasava went along with his nephew -
Alpeshbhai Buddhisagar Vasava to J.J. Sarvajanik High
School at Kandari and at that time, the accused were
standing out of the office. The complainant and Alpeshbhai
Buddhisagar Vasava had given an application for getting the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/697/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/07/2025
undefined
school leaving certificate and all the accused abused them
and asked them why they had entered the high school and
got angry and pushed them out of the school. The accused
no. 1 gave two slaps on the right cheek of the complainant
and the complainant gave an application to the Karjan
Police Station on the same day and thereafter, filed a
complaint on 27.09.2009 at Karjan Police Station which was
registered at Karjan Police Station I - C.R. No. 146 of 2009
under Sections 323, 504 and 114 of the IPC and Section
3(1)(10) of the Atrocity Act.
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 Atrocity
Case No. 49/2009.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/697/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/07/2025
undefined
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. 4 was framed against the
accused and the statements of the accused was recorded at
Exhs. 5, 6, 7 and 8 wherein, the accused denied the
contents of the charge and the entire evidence of the
prosecution was taken on record.
2.4 The prosecution examined 9 witnesses and produced
17 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
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/697/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/07/2025
undefined
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
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. Though served, none has appeared on
behalf of the respondents. Perused the impugned judgement
and order of acquittal and have reappreciated the entire
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/697/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/07/2025
undefined
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 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.
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 interfered with, by an appellate court,
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/697/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/07/2025
undefined
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/697/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/07/2025
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
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/697/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/07/2025
undefined
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 - Rameshbhai
Ranchhodbhai Patel at Exh. 16 and PW2 - Jayantibhai
Prabhudas Patel at Exh. 17. Both the witnesses are the
panch witnesses of the arrest panchnama by which the
accused were arrested and the panchnama is produced at
Exh. 17. The witnesses have not supported the case of the
prosecution and have been declared hostile and cross-
examined at length but nothing to support the case of the
prosecution has come on record.
8.1 The prosecution has examined PW3 - Parsottambhai
Tribhovanbhai Harijan at Exh. 19 and the witness is the
panch witness of the panchnama of the place of offence
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/697/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/07/2025
undefined
which is produced at Exh. 20. The witness has fully
supported the case of the prosecution and during the cross-
examination has admitted that the complainant is his
neighbour and he was called by the complainant. He is not
an eyewitness to the incident but he had heard that the
incident has occurred and the school compound has three
buildings but he cannot identify the exact place where the
incident has occurred.
8.2 PW4 - Vijaybhai Bhailalbhai Vasava examined at Exh.
22 is the complainant who has supported the contents of
the complaint. During the cross-examination, the witness
has stated that he had studied in J.J. Sarvajanik High
School and he is aware that an application for the school
leaving certificate has to be given and any important
document cannot be given to any person. At the time of the
incident, Alpeshbhai was a minor and there was no
authorisation letter from his parents to take the school
leaving certificate of the minor. That in the application, he
had not affixed his signature as the guardian of the minor
and he had not signed at any place on the application and
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/697/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/07/2025
undefined
he had gone to K.T. Sarvajanik High School for demanding
the school leaving certificate and in the complaint, he has
not mentioned that he had gone to J.K. Sarvajanik High
School to take the school leaving certificate of Alpeshbhai.
In the application for the school leaving certificate, he has
not mentioned in which school Alpeshbhai had studied and
he was informed to give an application in writing. The
accused are engaged in social and educational activities
and he had earlier given the application which is produced
at Exh. 23. That he was arrested in a criminal case and a
complaint has been had been filed against him and his
family members as during a program in Sarvajanik High
School, they had thrown stones and damaged vehicles and
the case was pending against them. The complainant has
produced the application given on 18.09.2009 at Exh. 23,
the complaint at Exh. 24 and the caste certificate at Exh.
8.3 PW5 - Kamlesh @ Alpesh Buddhisagar Vasava has
been examined at Exh. 26 and as per the case of the
prosecution, the witness was present along with the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/697/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/07/2025
undefined
complainant at the time of the incident and is an
eyewitness to the incident. The witness has fully supported
the case of the prosecution and during the cross-
examination has stated that in the school compound, there
are three schools - Vidyavihar Primary School, Srimati K. T.
Patel Primary School and J. K. Patel Primary School and all
the three schools have different buildings and separate
offices. That in the school, his name was mentioned as
Alpeshkumar Buddhisagar Vasava and he had given the
application for the school leaving certificate and at that
time his parents or relatives were not present. He does not
know whom was the application given to and he was told to
get the signature of his parents and that the certificate
would be given after two days. They came out of the office
but the complainant insisted that the certificate should be
given on the same day. After the incident, he had gone
home and the complainant had called him to the Police
Station where his statement was recorded and the
complainant had dictated his statement. At the time of the
incident, there were many people present in the compound
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/697/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/07/2025
undefined
and the school management had telephoned the police, and
a policeman named Yogendrabhai had come to the school
and had removed everyone out from the compound. At that
time, the accused had also come to the school as they were
the trustees of the school.
8.4 PW6 - Mehulkumar Vinodchandra Patel examined at
Exh. 27 was working as a teacher in the school on the date
of the incident and he has stated that the complainant
along with Alpesh came and demanded for the school
leaving certificate of Alpesh. The application was given to
him but did not bear the signature of the parents or
guardian of Alpesh and he was told to give a complete
application with the details and the signature of the parents
but the complainant insisted that the school certificate
should be given on the same day. The application given by
the complainant is produced at Exh. 28. The witness has
stated that when he was leaving the school, he saw the
police as there was a verbal altercation between the
complainant and the trustees and the police had demanded
for information regarding Kamlesh Buddhisagar Vasava
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/697/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/07/2025
undefined
and his school leaving certificate by the letter produced at
Exh. 29 and the reply given by them is produced at Exh.
30. During the cross-examination, the witness has stated
that the complainant was told to give a detailed application
with the proper signatures and the school leaving certificate
would be given after two days but the complainant got
angry and insisted that the school leaving certificate should
be given on the same day. The complainant had also
threatened to file a complaint against the witness.
8.5 PW7 - Yogendrabhai Kabhaibhai Patanwadia
examined at Exh. 32 has stated that he was working in
Kandari Beat, Karjan Police Station and on 20.09.2009, the
application of Vijaybhai Bhailalbhai Vasava had come to
him for investigation. He met the complainant and recorded
his statement, wherein, the complainant has stated that the
details mentioned in the application dated 18.09.2009 are
correct and besides that nothing else had happened and his
statement was recorded on 20.09.2009 and a report was
sent by the witness to the Police Station. The Police
Inspector had called the applicant but he refused to come
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/697/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/07/2025
undefined
in-person and a summons under Section 160 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 was sent to him but the
applicant did not come to the Police Station and once again
he was informed on 27.09.2009 on his mobile to come to
the Police Station. The complainant came to the Police
Station and filed a complaint under the Atrocity Act which
was registered at Karjan Police Station II - C.R. No. 146 of
2009 under Sections 323, 504 and 114 of the IPC and
Section 3(1)(10) of the Atrocity Act. The witness has
produced the summons under Section 160 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 sent to the complainant at Exh.
33 and the report sent to Police Inspector, Karjan Police
Station at Exh. 34. During the cross examination the
witness has admitted that on 18.09.2009, he had gone to
the school compound and a verbal altercation between the
complainant and the accused had taken place and the
school management had informed the Police Station as the
examinations were going on and he had removed the
complainant from the school compound and at that time
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/697/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/07/2025
undefined
the complainant did not say that he was beaten or caste
slurs were used against him.
8.6 PW8 - Mahendrasinh Somsinh examined at Exh. 35 is
the PSO, Karjan Police Station who has registered the
complaint of the complainant. The witness has produced
the extract of the Station Diary at Exh. 36.
8.7 PW9 - Keshavlal Premjibhai Gajipara examined at
Exh. 40 is the Investigating Officer who has narrated in
detail the procedure undertaken by him during
investigation. During the cross examination the witness has
stated that during investigation no conclusive evidence was
found that witness Alpeshbhai and Kamleshbhai are one
and the same persons.
9. On minute perusal of the entire evidence of the
prosecution on record, the incident as per the say of the
complainant has occurred on 18.09.2009 and the
complainant had gone to the Police Station and given an
application which is produced at Exh. 23 wherein he has
stated that between 11.00 am and 11.30 am he had gone to
Kandari High School with his nephew named Alpesh to get
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/697/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/07/2025
undefined
his school leaving certificate and the accused had asked
them why they had entered into the school without
permission and had pushed them out of the school and the
application was inquired into by PW7 - Yogendrabhai
Kabhaibhai Patanwadia. The complainant did not want to
expand any further about his application and after he was
served with the summons under Section 160 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 which is produced at Exh. 33 he
had gone and filed the complaint, wherein, he had stated
that caste slurs were used against him and Alpesh and he
was slapped twice on his right cheek. The complaint at Exh.
24 is given on 27.09.2009 and there is no explanation
regarding the delay in filing the complaint. Moreover,
during the further statement of the accused recorded under
section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, it is
come on record that the complainant had earlier filed a
case at Vadodara Taluka Police Station against the accused
no. 1 and nine others under Sections 323, 326, 324, 337,
143, 147, 148, 149, 504, 506(2) of the IPC and Section 3(1)
(10) of the Atrocity Act and Section 135 of the BP Act which
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/697/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/07/2025
undefined
was registered at Karjan Police Station I - C.R. No. 99 of
2007 and after filing of the charge sheet, Special Atrocity
Case No. 63 of 2007 was tried by the learned Presiding
Officer, Fast Track Court No. 3, Vadodara, wherein, all the
accused were acquitted from the offence. As per the case of
the prosecution, the complainant had gone to get the
leaving certificate of Alpeshbhai Buddhisagar Vasava and
the application that was given in the school is produced on
record at Exh. 28. On perusal of the document produced at
Exh. 28, it is an application signed by Kamleshkumar and
it states that he was studying in class 5 in the year 2006
and he wanted his certificate but the application is not
address to the Principal of any specific school. Admittedly,
there were three schools functioning in the same compound
and the application does not mention in which school
Kamlesh was studying. As per PW9 - Keshavlal Premjibhai
Gajipura - the Investigating Officer there is no evidenceon
record that Kamlesh and Alpesh were the same persons
and moreover it has also come on record that the
complainant did not have any relation with Alpesh who was
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/697/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/07/2025
undefined
a minor on the date of the incident. PW6 - the Teacher of
K.T. Patel Sarvajanik High School has stated that the
complainant and Alpeshbhai had come to give the
application and they were told to give a proper application
with the signature of the guardian of Alpesh as he was a
minor on the date of the incident and they would be given
the school leaving certificate after two days. There is also
evidence on record that there were three schools in the
same compound and the application at Exh. 28 does not
state in which school the witness was studying and the
application is not addressed to anyone. Moreover, the caste
certificate of the complainant has been produced by the
complainant at Exh. 25 and there is nothing on record to
prove that the Investigating Officer had undertaken any
investigation with regard to the caste certificate of the
complainant. The learned Trial Court has appreciated all
the evidence and discussed the entire oral and
documentary evidence in the impugned judgment.
10. In view of the settled position of law in the decisions of
Chandrappa (supra), the learned Trial Court has
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/697/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/07/2025
undefined
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
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 and
Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court No. 5, Vadodara in
Atrocity Case No. 49/2009 on 01.04.2011, is hereby
confirmed.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/697/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/07/2025
undefined
12. Bail bond stands cancelled. Record and proceedings
be sent back to the concerned Trial Court forthwith.
(S. V. PINTO,J)
VASIM S. SAIYED
