Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Raval Chaturbhai Lakhmanbhai on 9 July, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/461/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/07/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 461 of 2011
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE S.V. PINTO
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
No
==========================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
RAVAL CHATURBHAI LAKHMANBHAI & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR. PRANAV DHAGAT, APP for the Appellant(s) No. 1
ADVOCATE NOTICE SERVED for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3
BAILABLE WARRANT SERVED for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3
NOTICE SERVED for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 4
==========================================================
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 Special Judge,
Patan (hereinafter referred to as "the learned Trial Court") in Special
(Atrocity) Case No. 60 of 2008 on 04.01.2010, whereby, the learned
trial Court has acquitted the respondents for the offence punishable under
Sections 323, 504, 506(2) and 427 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereafter
referred to as "IPC" for short) and Section Section 3(i)(x) of the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/461/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/07/2025
undefined
Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,
1989 (hereinafter referred to as "Atrocities Act").
1.1 The respondent is 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 9-08-2008, at around 7.30 am, the complainant Pushpaben wife
of Maganbhai Devabhai Chamar was washing vessels in front of her
house and, at that time, the accused armed with sticks came and started
quarrelling with her and asked her that why was her husband not
allowing them to use the road in front of their house at night and
assaulted her with the sticks. As she shouted, her brother-in-law
Naranbhai Devabhai came to intervene and the accused No. 3 assaulted
her brother-in-law Naranbhai Devabhai with a stick on his back and as
they shouted, her husband Maganbhai Devabhai came to intervene and
they tore the banyan of her husband Maganbhai. The accused hurled
caste-slurs against them and threatened to kill them and the complainant
filed the complaint at Chanasma Police Station under Sections 323, 504,
506(2), 427 and 114 of IPC, 1860 and Section 3(i)(x) of the Atrocities
Act, which was registered as II - C.R.No.85 of 2008.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/461/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/07/2025
undefined
2.2 The Investigating Officer recorded the statements of the connected
witnesses and seized the necessary documents and after completion of
investigation, a chargesheet came to be filed before the Court of Judicial
Magistrate First Class, Chanasma and as the said offences against the
accused was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the case was
committed to the Sessions Court, Patan as per the provisions of Section
209 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and case was registered Special
(Atrocities) Case No. 60 of 2008.
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. 8 was framed
against the accused and the statements of the accused were recorded at
Exhs. 9 to 11, 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 fourteen oral evidences and fifteen
documentary evidences to bring home charge against the accused and
after the learned Additional Public Prosecutor filed the closing pursis at
Exh. 83, 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
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/461/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/07/2025
undefined
to step into the witness box but stated that he wanted to examine defense
witness. 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.
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 respondents. The case
has been proved beyond reasonable doubts and the prosecution has
successfully established the case against the respondents 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
respondents 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, the respondents have not appeared either in person or
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/461/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/07/2025
undefined
through an advocate. 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 Mr. Pranav Dhagat has 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. That the complainant has supported the
case of the prosecution and the witnesses have identified the accused
before the learned trial Court. 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. That 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 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,
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/461/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/07/2025
undefined
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". (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.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/461/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/07/2025
undefined
7. The law with regard to acquittal appeals is well crystallized and in
acquittal appeals, there is a 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 on the above settled principles of law and considering the
evidence of the prosecution on record, to bring home the charge against
the accused, the prosecution has examined Prosecution Witness No.1
Pushpaben Maganbhai Chamar at Exhibit 14 and the witness is the
complainant and has fully supported the contents of the complaint, which
is produced at Exh.35. The witness has stated that as she and others
were , she was taken to Civil Hospital, Patan for treatment and she had
given a copy of her caste certificate to the Police.
During the cross- examination by the learned advocate for the
accused, the witness has stated that on the left side of the road from
Jhiliya to Ranasan, is Indiranagar and there are 20 to 25 houses of
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/461/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/07/2025
undefined
persons belonging to their caste. Other persons from other communities
are also residing there and at the time of the incident, she alone was
washing her utensils. She had made allegations that the accused were
gamblers and consuming alcohol and the accused had denied the same
and when the accused had assaulted her, she was injured and was
bleeding and her saree was also stained with blood and blood also fell on
the ground. Her husband came after 5 minutes and asked her how she
was injured and Narayanbhai came and asked her how she was injured
and thereafter she felt unconscious and was taken in an unconscious state
to the hospital. The complaint was dictated by her husband and she does
not know the facts mentioned in the complaint as she was unconscious at
that time.
8.1 Prosecution Witness No. 2 - Maganbhai Devabhai Chamar
examined at Exh.15 is the husband of the complainant, who has
supported the case of the prosecution.
During the cross-examination, the witness has stated that when he
came to the place of incidnet, his wife was lying unconscious face down
on the ground and she was taken to hospital in an unconscious state.
Narayanbhai had come before him and when he reached the place of
incident, Narayanbhai was already present there. They had gone to the
Chanasma Police Station and had gone to Patan in the S.T.bus as the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/461/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/07/2025
undefined
injuries were more serious. The police had told them to take treatment
first and they went in the S.T. bus to Patan. At the time of the incident, a
number of persons had gathered there and he was paid an amount of
Rs.2,500/- as compensation from the government as the case was filed.
8.2 Prosecution Witness No. 3 - Narayanbhai Devabhai Chamar
examined at Exh.16 is the brother-in-law of the complainant who has
supported the case of the prosecution and has stated that he had
intervened and at that time, the accused No. 3 had assaulted him with a
stick on his back.
In the cross-examination, the witness has stated that Pushpaben
was assaulted with a stick on the head and she was bleeding and at the
time of the panchnama, he had showed the place, where the blood had
fallen on the ground. Pushpaben was unconscious and regained
consciousness only in the hospital. That, he too, was paid Rs.2,500/- as
compensation and 8 to 10 persons had gathered at the time of the
incident. The complaint was dictated by Maganbhai and he was present
at that time.
8.3 The prosecution has examined Prosecution Witness No. 4
Babubhai Govabhai Rawal at Exh.17 and Prosecution Witness No. 5
Manubhai Joitabhai Rawal at Exh.18. Both the witnesses are the panch
witnesses of the arrest panchnama by which the accused were arrested
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/461/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/07/2025
undefined
which is produced at Exh.41. The witnesses have not supported the case
of the prosecution and have been declared hostile.
8.4 Prosecution Witness No. 6 - Shabbirbhai Kesarkha Sipai
examined at Exh.9 and Prosecution Witness No. 7 Haribhai
Veerbhanbhai Solanki examined at Exh.20 are the witnesses of the
panchnama, by which, the torn banyan of Maganbhai Devabhai Parmar
was seized by the Investigating Officer during investigation by the
panchnama which is produced at Exh.40. Both the witnesses have not
supported the case of the prosecution and have been declared hostile.
8.5 Prosecution Witness No. 8 - Thakor Punjaji Sonaji
examined at Exh.21 is the panch-witness of the panchnama of the place
of offence, which is produced at Exh.39. The witness has not supported
the case of the prosecution and has been declared hostile.
8.6 Prosecution Witness No. 9 - Kankuben Jethabhai Parmar
examined at Exh.22 is the sister-in-law of the complainant Pushpaben
and she has stated that she was not present at the time of the incident and
she heard some sounds and came out of the house but did not see the
accused assaulting her sister-in-law, the complainant Pushpaben. The
witness has not supported the case of the prosecution and has been
declared hostile and has been cross-examined at length by the learned
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/461/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/07/2025
undefined
APP, but nothing to support the case of the prosecution has come on
record.
8.7 Prosecution Witness No. 10 - Dr.Priyesh Shivrambhai
Chauhan examined at Exh.24 was working as the Medical Officer in
CHC, Lanwa and he has stated that on 10-08-2008 at around 10.30am,
Naranbhai Devabhai came for treatment and in the history, he had stated
that he was assaulted by Chaturbhai Lakshmanbhai Rawal, Bijalbhai
Lakshmanbhai Rawal and Jayeshbhai Bijalbhai Rawal on his thigh with a
stick and they has throttled him at around 7.30 am on 9-08-2008. There
was tenderness on the right gluteal region and the injury could be caused
by hard and blunt object and the witness has produced the medical
certificates at Exhs.26 and 27.
During the cross examination, the witness has admitted that the
injury could be sustained if the person has a fall.
8.8 Prosecution Witness No. 11 - Dr. Abid Hussain Ahmed
Hussain Mansuri examined at Exh.28 was the Medical Officer of General
Hospital, Patan and he has stated that on 11-08-2008 at around 5.20 pm
Maganbhai Devabhai, aged 45. residing at Ranasana had come for
treatment and in the history he has stated that on 9-08-2008 he was
assaulted with a stick and fists at 7.30 am at Ranasana by Jayeshbhai
Bijalbhai Rawal. The patient had a complaint of pain over left side of the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/461/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/07/2025
undefined
chest and the injury was simple, which could be sustained by a hard and
blunt object. The witness has produced the Medical Certificate of
Maganbhai Devabhai Parmar at Exh.29.
8.9 Prosecution Witness No. 12 - Dr. Nitinkumar Atmarambhai
examined at exh.30 is the Medical Officer of General Hospital, Patan and
he has stated that on 09-08-2008, while he was on his duty at Patan
General Hospital, Pushpaben Maganbhai Chamar came for treatment
with alleged history of assault by Chaturbhai Lakhabhai, Bijalbhai
Lakhabhai and Jayeshbhai Bijalbhai at 7am. On examination, she had a
2cm X 1cm abrasion on the right parietal region. The injury was fresh
and simple and could be sustained by a hard and blunt object. The
witness has produced the OPD case papers at Exh. 31 and the medical
certificates at Exh.32 and Exh.33.
During the cross examination, the witness has admitted that the
injury could be sustained by a fall.
8.10 Prosecution Witness No. 13 - Natuji Jeevaji Waghela was
working as an ASI at the Patan Civil Hospital and has recorded the
complaint of the complainant Pushpaben Maganbhai.
8.11 Prosecution Witness No. 14 - Kantibhai Mangandas Patel
examined at Exh.38 is the Investigation Officer, who has narrated in
detail the procedure undertaken by him during investigation.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/461/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/07/2025
undefined
During the cross examination by the learned advocate for the
accused, the witness has stated that there are a number of residential
houses around the place of incident and the complainant did not go to the
Chanasama Police Station for filing the complaint. The witness did not
seize the clothes of the complainant during investigation.
9. On minute appreciation of the entire evidence of the prosecution,
the complainant Prosecution Witness No.1 Pushpaben Maganbhai
Chamar, Prosecution Witness No. 2 Maganbhai Devabhai Chamar and
Prosecution Witness No. 3, Naranbhai Devabhai Chamar have all stated
that, at the time of the incident, Pushpaben was unconscious and she was
taken in an unconscious state to the hospital where she regained
consciousness and was exhumed. There is no iota of evidence to support
the say of these witnesses and the medical officer Prosecution Witness
No. 12 Dr. Nitinkumar Atmarambhai has stated that Pushpaben was
brought to the hospital and she had sustained an abrasion of 2 cm X 1 cm
on her right parietal region. The witness has not stated that the injury was
bleeding, whereas, Pushpaben has stated that at the time of the incident,
she was bleeding and her saree was stained with blood and there was
blood on the ground but no such evidence appears in the panchnama of
the place of offence, which is produced at Exh. 31. There are major
exaggerations in the evidence of the complainant and the witnesses and
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/461/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/07/2025
undefined
as per the evidence of the Investigating Officer, there are a number of
residential houses surrounding the place of incident but no independent
eye-witnesses have been examined by the prosecution. Prosecution
Witness No. 9 Kankuben Jethabhai Parmar is the sister-in-law of the
complainant Pushpaben and as per the case of the prosecution, she is an
eye-witness to the incident, but the witness has not supported the case of
the prosecution and has been declared hostile and in the lengthy
examination by the learned APP, no such evidence that the incident has
occurred has come on record. Admittedly, the evidence has emerged on
record that the way to the house of the accused, is in front of the house of
the complainant, and there are some disputes with regard to his road as
also civil disputes are pending between the parties.
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
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/461/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/07/2025
undefined
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 learned
Special Judge, Patan in Special (Atrocity) Case No. 60 of 2008 on
04.01.2010, 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
