Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Ravubhai Jilubhai Dhandhal on 9 July, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/429/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/07/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 429 of 2011
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE S.V. PINTO
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
No
==========================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
RAVUBHAI JILUBHAI DHANDHAL & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR. PRANAV DHAGAT, APP for the Appellant(s) No. 1
BAILABLE WARRANT SERVED for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1,2
MR NIKHILESH J SHAH(3007) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 3
RULE SERVED for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1,2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE S.V. PINTO
Date : 09/07/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1] This appeal has been 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 learned Additional Sessions
Judge & Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court No. 2, Camp at Botad,
(hereinafter referred to as "the learned trial Court") in Special (ATRO)
Case No. 29 of 2007 on 29.12.2010, whereby, the learned trial Court has
acquitted the respondents for the offence for the offence punishable
under Sections 325, 323, 504, 506(2) and 114 of the Indian Penal Code,
1860 (hereinafter referred to as the IPC) and Sections 3 (i)(ix), 3(i) (xiii)
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/429/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/07/2025
undefined
of the Scheduled Casts and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of the
Atrocities) Act, and Section 135 of Bombay Police Act, (hereinafter
referred to as the Act).
1.1 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] The complainant - Danabhai Virabhai Solanki had his
agricultural land on the road going towards Samdhiyada and in that land,
he had a 20 x 20 feet tank for water and the water was used for drinking
as well as for the agriculture purpose. On 05.04.2007 at around 4 p.m.,
the complainant Danabhai Virabhai Solanki was going with his tractor
and trailor filled with mud to his agricultural land and at that time, he
met the accused at a distance of about 25 feet away from his agricultural
land. The complainant told them that he knew that they were having bath
in the water tank in his agricultural land and the water was being used for
drinking and agriculture purpose, he asked them why were they having
bath in that water. The accused No. 1 got angry and hurled caste abuses
against him and told him that they would take bath in the tank again. The
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/429/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/07/2025
undefined
other accused also abused him and the accused No. 1 took a stick and hit
it on the left hand and other parts of the body of the complainant and the
others started beating the complainant with fists. As the complainant
shouted, his son Bhupat was working in the field, came and released him
from the assault of the accused persons and put him in the tractor and
brought him home. Thereafter, his brother Budhabhai took him to
Sonawala Government Hospital at Botad for treatment, from where, he
was referred to the orthopedic hospital of Dr. Chhaya at Botad. As the
accused had beat him, threatened to kill him and abused him, the
complaint was filed by the complainant Danabhai Virabhai Solanki being
I-C.R.No. 67 of 2007 at Botad Police Station, under Sections 325, 323,
504, 506(2) and 114 of the IPC, Sections 3(i)(ix), 3(i) (xiii) of the
Atrocities Act and Section 135 of Bombay Police Act.
2.2] The Investigating Officer recorded the statements of the
connected witnesses and had collected the necessary documents and after
completion of investigation, the police filed the chargesheet against the
accused before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Botad and as the
said offences against the accused were exclusively triable by the Court of
Sessions, the case was committed to the Sessions Court, Bhavnagar as
per the provisions of Section 209 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and
the case was registered Special (ATRO) Case No. 29 of 2007.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/429/2011 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.3 was
framed against the accused and the statements of the accused were
recorded at Exhs. 4 and 5, wherein, the accused denied all the contents of
the charge and the entire evidence of the prosecution was taken on
record.
2.4] The prosecution produced eight oral evidence and sixteen
documentary evidence to bring home charge against all accused 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 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
Additional Public Prosecutor and the learned advocate for the accused
were heard, the learned trial Court by the impugned judgment and order
was pleased to acquit all the accused from all the charges leveled against
them.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/429/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/07/2025
undefined
3] Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said judgement and
order of acquittal, the appellant - State has filed the present appeal
mainly stating that the impugned judgement 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 cross-examination,
nothing adverse has been elicited in favour of the respondent. The case
has been proved beyond reasonable doubts and the prosecution has
successfully established the case against the respondent and the
judgement and order of acquittal is unwarranted, illegal and without any
basis in the eyes of 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
and learned advocate Mr. N.J.Shah appearing for the respondent No. 3
original accused. Though served the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have not
appeared either in person or though an advocate. Perused the impugned
judgement and order of acquittal and have reappreciated the entire
evidence of the prosecution on record of the case.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/429/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/07/2025
undefined
5] Learned APP Mr. Pranav Dhagat for the respondent-State and
learned advocate Mr. N.J.Shah have jointly taken this Court through the
entire evidence of the prosecution on record of the case and submitted
that the judgment and order of acquittal is contrary to law and evidence
on record and the learned trial Court has not appreciated the direct and
indirect evidence in the case. The complainant has supported the case of
the prosecution. The prosecution has fully proved the case beyond
reasonable doubts but the learned trial Court has relied on minor
contradictions and has given undue weightage with regard to the place of
incident. The order passed by the learned trial Court is illegal, improper
and perverse and is required to be quashed and set aside and the appeal of
the appellant must be allowed.
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 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 v. State of M.P., (2006) 10 SCC 313 : AIR 2006 SC
831, 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
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/429/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/07/2025
undefined
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". (emphasis supplied)
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 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
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/429/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/07/2025
undefined
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 appre-
ciation, 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 principles of law, the evidence on
record of the case is appreciated and the prosecution has examined
Prosecution Witness No. 1 Danabhai Virabhai Solanki at Exh.12 and the
witness is the complainant, who has fully supported the facts of the
complaint.During the cross examination by the learned advocate for the
accused, he has stated that the agricultural land is an ancestral land and it
is partitioned between him and his two brothers and during the monsoon
season, there are a number of persons working in the fields. In the
complaint, he has not stated that the accused were changing their clothes
and his son came after the incident was over. The doctor at Sonawala
Hospital did not send him with a refer chit to an orthopedic surgeon and
he was not referred to any hospital at Bhavnagar. He had gone to the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/429/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/07/2025
undefined
police station after taking treatment and he has not produced any
documentary evidence to show that he was the owner of the land.
8.1] Prosecution Witness No. 2 Motibhai Parshottambhai
examined at Exh.14 is the panch-witness of the panchnama of the place
of offence which is produced at Exhibit 15.
8.2] Prosecution Witness No. 3 Vipulbhai, Gohalhai examined at
Exh.16 and Prosecution Witness No. 4 Sureshbhai Kanjibhai examined
at Exhibit 18 are the panch witnesses of the arrest panchnama, by which,
the accused were arrested and which is produced at Exh.17. Both the
witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution and have been
declared hostile.
8.3] Prosecution Witness No. 5 Dr. Jagrut Dushyantbhai Chhaya
at Exh.20 is the Medical Officer doing private practice and he has stated
that on 05-04-2007 Danjibhai Virabhai aged 43 years, resident of
Karyani came to his hospital for treatment and in the history, he had
stated that on 05-04-2007 at 04:00 pm some darbar had assaulted him
with a stick and injured him on his wrist. As it was a medico-legal case
he had informed the police and on examination ofthe patient, he had a
contusion on the left wrist and on the left elbow. The patient was treated
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/429/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/07/2025
undefined
as an outdoor patient and the witness has produced the medical
certificate at Exh.21.
During the cross examination by the learned advocate for the
accused, the witness has stated that police did not come to his hospital
and before coming to his hospital, the patient had taken treatment at
Sonawala hospital and was conscious when he was brought to the
hospital.
8.4] Prosecution Witness No. 6 Vestaji Kadwaji Sadat examined
at Exh.24 was the PSO, Botad Police Station, who has registered the
offence.
8.5] Prosecution Witness No. 7 Hitendra Jagannath Chaudhary
examined at Exh.29 was working as the in-charge Police Inspector and
he has recorded the complaint of the complainant.
In the cross examination, the witness has stated that the
complainant had come to the police station for filing the complaint and
he did not bring any MLC Yadi with him. The police station was not
informed by any medical officer and the complainant had taken
treatment and come to the police station.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/429/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/07/2025
undefined
8.6] Prosecustion Witnes No. 8 Babarbhai Narottambhai
Chauhan examined at Exh.30 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 did not state in the
complaint or the further statement that the accused had taken bath and
they were changing their clothes.
9] On minute appreciation of the entire evidence of the
prosecution, the case has been filed under Section 3 (1)(xiii) the
Atrocities Act which reads as under.
3. Punishments for offences atrocities.--
" 3[(1) Whoever, not being a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled
Tribe,"--
" (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"
To prove the offence under Section 3 (1) (xiii) the Atrocities Act,
the prosecution has to prove that the accused had corrupted the water of
any reservoir or source ordinarily used by members of the scheduled
caste or scheduled tribe, so as to render it less fit for the purpose, for
which, it is ordinarily used. In the complaint, the complainant has stated
that he had 20 x 20 feet size water tank in his agricultural field but there
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/429/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/07/2025
undefined
is no iota of evidence on record that any such tank was ever existing at
the place of incident and whether the complainant was the owner of the
land where the tank was situated. There are no eyewitnesses to the
incident to show that the accused had taken bath in the tank and due to
the act of the accused, the water was rendered less fit for the purpose for
which it was used. In the complaint, the witness has stated that he met
the accused at a distance of about 25 feet from his field and the
complaint itself states that the complainant felt that they had taken bath
in the tank. There is no iota of evidence that such an incident had ever
occurred and in the entire evidence of the prosecution, only the
complainant has been examined at Exh.12. As per the say of the
complainant, his son Bhupat had come at the time of the incident but his
son has not been examined before the learned trial Court. It has also
come on record that during the monsoon season, there are a number of
workers working in the fields around but none of the persons or
independent witnesses have been examined to prove that such an
incident has taken place. The complainant has stated that he had
sustained a fracture on his wrist but if the medical certificate produced at
Exh.21 and the evidence of the Medical Officer Prosecution Witness
No.5 Dr. Jagrut Dushyantbhai Chhaya is perused, no fracture was found
on the hand of the complainant and there is no report of any x-ray to
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/429/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/07/2025
undefined
show that the complainant had sustained any fracture on his hand. The
evidence on is record that the injury was a simple injury and the medical
officer has admitted that the complainant had taken treatment at
Sonawala Hospital but no such evidence about the treatment taken at
Sonawala Hospital is on record. Apparently, there is an exaggeration in
the evidence of the complainant and the complainant has not named the
accused before the Medical Officer. Moreover, the incident has occurred
near the field when only the accused and the complainant were present
and there is no iota of evidence that any intentional insult was hurled by
the accused to humiliate the complainant in any place within public
view.
10] In view of the settled position of law in the decisions of
Chandrppa (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 extending benefit of doubt and acquitting the accused of the
charges leveled against him. 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
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/429/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/07/2025
undefined
agreement with the findings, ultimate conclusion and the resultant order
of extending benefit of doubt and 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 & Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court
No. 2, Camp at Botad, in Special (ATRO) Case No. 29 of 2007 on
29.12.2010 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)
VVM
