Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Rajendrabhai Alias Rajeshbhai ... on 15 July, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1479/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL (AGAINST ACQUITTAL) NO. 1479 of 2013
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE S.V. PINTO
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting No
==========================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
RAJENDRABHAI ALIAS RAJESHBHAI BACHUBHAI RATHOD & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS. C.M. SHAH, APP for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR.HARDIK BHARHMBHAT(3741) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No.
1,2
NOTICE SERVED for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 3
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE S.V. PINTO
Date : 15/07/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. The appeal is filed by the appellant State under
Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against
the judgement and order of acquittal passed by the learned
Special Judge and Additional Sessions Judge, Anand
(hereinafter referred to as "the learned Trial Court") in
Special Case Atro No. 20/2011 on 16.04.2013, whereby, the
learned Trial Court has acquitted the respondents extending
benefit of doubt for the offence punishable under Sections
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1479/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2025
undefined
323, 504, 506(2) 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.
2 - Bhaveshbhai Mahendrabhai Suthar expired on
23.10.2016 and the certificate of Sarpanch, Gram
Panchayat, Magharol, Taluka Sojitra, District Anand is
produced on record. In view of the same, the appeal qua the
respondent no. 2 stands 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 14.01.2011, at around 19.30 hours, Rameshbhai
Naranbhai Rohit - the brother of the complainant Devjibhai
Naranbhai Rohit was returning from his field and when he
came to the Goya lake at village Magrol, the accused met
him and as they had an earlier dispute about the road
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1479/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2025
undefined
passing through their field, they assaulted him with fists
and abused him and used caste slurs and threatened to kill
him. The complainant - Devjibhai Naranbhai Rohit filed the
complaint at the Sojitra Police Station under Sections 323,
504, 506(2) and 114 of the Indian Penal Code and Section
3(1)(10) of the Atrocity Act which came to be registered as
Sojitra Police Station II - C.R. No. 3003 of 2011.
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, Khambhat and as the said offences
against the accused were exclusively triable by the Court of
Sessions, the case was committed to the Sessions Court,
Anand as per the provisions of Section 209 of Code of
Criminal Procedure and the case was registered as Special
Atrocity Case No. 20/2011.
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
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1479/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2025
undefined
provided to the accused as per the provisions of Section 207
of the Code. A charge at Exh. 5 was framed against the
accused and the statements of the accused was recorded at
Exhs. 6 and 7 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 15 witnesses and produced
11 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
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
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1479/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2025
undefined
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 Ms. C.M. Shah for the appellant
State and learned advocate Mr. Hardik Brahmbhatt for the
respondent no. 1. Though served, the respondent no. 3 -
original complainant has not appeared either in person or
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.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1479/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2025
undefined
5. Learned APP Ms. C.M. Shah 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.
5.1 Learned advocate Mr. Hardik Brahmbhatt for the
respondent no. 1 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
& 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:
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1479/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2025
undefined
"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
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',
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1479/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2025
undefined
'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 accused and it has finally
culminated when a case ends in an acquittal. The learned
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1479/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2025
undefined
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 - Devjibhai Naranbhai
Rohit at Exh. 13 and the witness is the complainant who
has filed the complaint which is produced at Exh. 14. As
per the complaint, the witness has stated that the incident
had occurred on 14.01.2011 and he heard his brother
shouting and when he went to the place of incident he saw
the accused assaulting his brother, abusing him and using
caste slurs. A number of persons gathered there and the
accused went away from there and they called the 108
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1479/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2025
undefined
Ambulance and took his brother to the hospital. His
brother Ramesh was injured on the forehead and he was
unconscious and he regained consciousness after 24 hours.
The witness has produced the complaint at Exh. 14 and his
caste certificate at Exh. 15. In the cross-examination, the
witness has admitted that he reached the place as he heard
shouts and at that time there were about 30 to 35 persons
gathered there. His brother was injured on the forehead
and after he reached the place, his other brother Mahijibhai
reached there.
8.1 PW2 - Mahijibhai Naranbhai Rohit has been examined
at Exh. 16 and the witness is the brother of the
complainant and the injured witness Ramesh who has
stated that at the time of the incident he was at his house
and the accused were assaulting his brother and he went to
intervene as his house was nearby. It was dark at the time
of the incident and his brother was injured on the head and
at that time there were 15 to 20 persons gathered there. His
brother was taken to the hospital and besides this nothing
else had taken place. In the cross-examination, the witness
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1479/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2025
undefined
has admitted that he had gone to the place after he heard
the shouts and his brother Devji was already present at the
place of incident and there was a crowd of about 25
persons at the spot.
8.2 PW3 - Rameshbhai Naranbhai Rohit examined at Exh.
17 is the injured witness who has fully supported the case
of the prosecution. The witness has stated that he was
injured on the forehead and nose but he does not know
with what weapon he was injured and the witness has
produced his caste certificate at Exh. 18. During the cross-
examination, the witness has stated that on 14.01.2011
there was a quarrel in the village and he had gone to see
the quarrel and at that time it was dark. There was a crowd
of about 15 to 20 persons and he does not know in the dark
what weapon was used. He had a tussle with the accused
about the accused going to their field from the edge of his
field and when he was injured, 25 to 30 persons had
gathered and his brother Devji had come. He was
unconscious after the incident and he does not know who
had uttered what words at the time of the incident.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1479/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2025
undefined
8.3 PW4 - Bhailalbhai Khodabhai Rohit examined at Exh.
21 is an eyewitness as per the case of the prosecution but
he has not supported the case of the prosecution and has
been declared hostile. The witness has been cross-
examined at length by the learned APP but nothing to
support the case of the prosecution has come on record.
8.4 PW5 - Bhailalbhai Naranbhai Rohit examined at Exh.
22 is also an eyewitness as per the case of the prosecution
and he has stated that at the time of the incident he was at
home but when he heard the shouts, he went to the place
of incident and he saw the accused assaulting his brother
Ramesh who was injured on the forehead. The witness has
stated that the accused had told his brother to go wherever
he wanted to go and during the cross-examination, he has
admitted that he was at his house at the time of the
incident. It was dark and after he heard the shouts, he
reached at the place of incident when both his brothers i.e.
Devji and Mahiji were present and there was a crowd of
about 25 persons gathered there. The witness has also
admitted that it was dark at the time of the incident and
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1479/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2025
undefined
they could not recognize who was present there and his
brother Ramesh was lying on the ground.
8.5 PW6 - Manubhai Mafatbhai Rathore examined at Exh.
23 is an eyewitness as per the case of the prosecution but
the witness has not supported the case of the prosecution
and has categorically stated that he has not seen anything
and does not know about any incident that had taken
place. The witness has been declared hostile and has been
cross examined at length by the learned APP but nothing to
support the case of the prosecution has emerged on record
during the cross-examination.
8.6 PW7 - Savitaben wife of Devjibhai Rohit examined at
Exh. 24 has also stated that she was at home at the time of
the incident and when she heard the shouts she went and
saw the accused assaulting her brother-in-law -
Rameshbhai. During the cross-examination the witness has
stated that it was dark at the time of the incident as it was
winter and a crowd of 20 to 25 persons were present and
when her husband reached the spot, her brother-in-law -
Rameshbhai was lying on the ground and unconscious. He
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1479/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2025
undefined
was taken to the hospital in the 108 Ambulance and as it
was dark no person could be identified.
8.7 The prosecution has examined PW8 - Jashodaben
Bhailalbhai Rohit at Exh. 25 and the witness has stated
that she was at home at the time of the incident and on
hearing the shout she ran to the spot and found that the
accused were assaulting her brother-in-law - Rameshbhai.
During the cross-examination she has stated that she does
not know who had assaulted whom as there was a crowd of
people and when she reached there Bhailal Khoda was
present and it was dark and there were many persons.
8.8 PW9 - Mahendrabhai Maneklal Mistry examined at
Exh. 27 is the panch witness of the arrest Panchnama
produced at Exh. 28. The witness has supported the case of
the prosecution.
8.9 PW10 - Dr. Rakeshkumar Mahendrabhai Patel
examined at Exh. 29 was working as a Medical Officer at
the emergency at Shri Krishna Hospital, Karamsad on
14.01.2011 and at 10.40 pm Rameshbhai Naranbhai Rohit
residing at Magrol, Rohitwas Taluka, Sojitra was brought by
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1479/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2025
undefined
his brother Devjibhai Naranbhai Rohit with a refer chit of
Community Health Centre, Tarapur. The refer chit is
produced at Exh. 30 and in the history, the patient's
brother Devjibhai had stated that on 14.01.2011 at around
7 pm he was injured at Magrol, Wagriwas at the edge of the
lake. His head was banged on the ground and he was
injured. The injured had a CLW 1 cm x 1 cm x 1 cm over
the forehead, multiple abrasions over the forehead and one
abrasion over the nose and all the injuries were simple
injuries which could be caused by a blunt weapon. The
injuries would heal within seven to ten days if no
complications arise and the medical certificate is produced
at Exh. 31. During the cross-examination, the witness has
admitted that if a person would fall down while running he
could sustain such injuries.
8.10 PW11 - Vitthalbhai Budhabhai Rathod examined at
Exh. 32 and PW12 - Sureshbhai Khushalbhai Rohit at Exh.
34 are the panch witnesses of the panchnama of the place
of offence which is produced at Exh. 33 and both the
witnesses have stated that the police had asked them to
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1479/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2025
undefined
affix their signature on the panchnama and they had done
so. The witnesses have been declared hostile as they have
not supported the case of the prosecution and have been
cross-examined at length by the learned APP but nothing to
support the case of the prosecution has come on record.
8.11 PW13 - Mansukhbhai Kanjibhai Gurjar examined at
Exh. 36 is the Police Inspector, Sojitra Police Station who
had recorded the complaint of the complainant.
8.12 PW14 - Praveenbhai Somabhai Rohit examined at
Exh. 43 has stated that on 14.01.2011 at around 07.30 pm
he was at his house and at that time there was a quarrel
between the accused and Rameshbhai Naranbhai Rohit and
as there were shouts heard he had gone to the lake. He saw
that Rameshbhai Naranbhai was injured and he was taken
to hospital. Rameshbhai was first taken to the Government
Hospital at Tarapur and thereafter to Shri Krishna Medical
Hospital at Karamsad and on the next day Rameshbhai and
his brother Devjibhai went and filed the case against the
accused. He does not know anything else besides this. The
witness has denied that when he went to the place of
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1479/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2025
undefined
offence, anyone was using any slurs or abuses. The witness
has not supported the case of the prosecution and has been
declared hostile. During the cross examination by the
learned advocate for the accused the witness has stated
that when he reached the place of incident there were a
number of persons gathered there and Rameshbhai was
injured.
8.13 PW15 - Abubakar Muhammadbhai Mansuri examined
at Exh. 44 is the Investigating Officer who has narrated in
detail the procedure undertaken by him during
investigation. During the cross examination he has stated
that the caste certificate of the complainant was not given
along with the complaint and when he recorded the
statements of the complainant and the injured witness,
they had given their caste certificates.
9. On minute appreciation of the entire evidence of the
prosecution the evidence that has emerged on record is that
as per the case of the prosecution, the injured witness PW3
- Rameshbhai Naranbhai Rohit was returning from his field
and while he was on the road near Goya Lake, the accused
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1479/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2025
undefined
met him and assaulted him. The witnesses who have stated
that they were eyewitnesses including the complainant PW1
- Devjibhai Naranbhai Rohit, PW2 - Maijibhai Naranbhai
Rohit, PW4 - Bhailalbhai Khodabhai Rohit, PW5 -
Bhailalbhai Naranbhai Rohit, PW6 - Manubhai Mafatbhai
Rathod, PW7 - Savitaben Devjibhai Rohit, PW8 -
Jashodaben Bhailalbhai Rohit and PW14 - Praveenbhai
Somabhai Rohit were all residents of Rohitvas and in all
their evidence it has emerged that when they leave their
house at Rohitvas, there is the Jogini Mata Temple and
thereafter, is the Vagrivas and the Goya lake. Hence, if they
wanted to go to Goya lake from their house they have to
cross the Jogini Mata Temple and the Vagrivas and
thereafter, they would reach the Goya lake. All the
witnesses are mainly the family members and neighbors of
the complainant and the injured witness and there is a
dispute between the parties about the way which is used by
the accused to go to their field. Moreover, in the evidence
the complainant or the other witnesses do not state that the
caste slurs were used against any persons and all the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1479/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2025
undefined
witnesses have admitted that at the time of the incident it
was dark and about 20 to 25 persons had gathered and
they could not recognize who was present. PW3 -
Rameshbhai Naranbhai Rohit the injured has stated that
he does not know who hit him in the dark and he has not
identified the accused during his deposition. Moreover,
immediately after the incident, as per the case of the
prosecution the injured was taken to Community Health
Center, Tarapur but there is no evidence about the
treatment taken by the injured at Community Health
Center, Tarapur that has come on record. PW10 is the
Medical Officer who has treated the injured at Shri Krishna
Medical Hospital, Karamsad and in the injury certificate
produced at Exh. 31 the history has been given by the
complainant - PW1 - Devjibhai Naranbhai Rohit - the
brother of the injured who has stated that there was an
assault on his brother by striking his head to the road at
around 07.00 pm on 14.01.2011 at Maghrol Nawa Vagriwas
near the bank of the pond but the complainant has not
named the accused as the persons who had assaulted him.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1479/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2025
undefined
In the entire evidence it has also emerged that at the time
of the incident the accused and the injured witness -
Rameshbhai were alone and all the witnesses have reached
after the incident has occurred and at the time of the
incident, as it was dark they could not identify who was the
person who has assaulted the injured witness. Moreover,
the Medical Officer - PW10 - Dr. Rakeshkumar
Mahendrabhai Patel has stated that the injuries were
simple and could be sustained when a person falls on the
ground. There is nothing on record to show that any
weapon was used by the accused and the injured witness
does not identify the person who had assaulted him.
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
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1479/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2025
undefined
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 Special Judge and Additional
Sessions Judge, Anand in Special Case Atro No. 20/2011
on 16.04.2013, 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)
VASIM S. SAIYED
