Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Ghoghubha @ Ganendrasinh Bapalal Zala on 15 July, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1377/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL (AGAINST ACQUITTAL) NO. 1377 of 2014
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE S.V. PINTO
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
No
==========================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
GHOGHUBHA @ GANENDRASINH BAPALAL ZALA & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS. C.M.SHAH, APP for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR ASHISH M DAGLI 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 : 15/07/2025
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 4th (Ad-hoc)
Additional Sessions Judge & Special Judge, Dhrangadhra
(hereinafter referred to as "the learned Trial Court") in Special
(Atrocity) Case No. 41 of 2012 on 31.05.2014, whereby, the learned
Trial Court has acquitted the respondents for the offence punishable
under Sections 323, 504, 506(2) and 114 of Indian Penal Code, 1860
(hereafter referred to as "IPC" for short) and Section 3 (I) (x) and
3 (i)(iv) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1377/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2025
undefined
Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as "Atrocities Act") and
Section 135 of the Gujarat Police 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 Nanjibhai Tabhabhai Vania had taken the
agricultural land of Nanjibhai Govindbhai Vania residing at Narichana
for cultivation and the same was not liked by the accused and on 3-6-
2012 at around 3.30 am, while the complainant and others were doing
agricultural work in the field the accused Nos. 1 and 2 came and asked
the complainant why had he taken the field of Nanjibhai Govindbhai for
cultivation. The complainant told them that he was given the same by
Nanjibhai Govindbhai and both the accused got agitated and used caste
slurs and threatened to cut the complainant. The accused No. 1 slapped
the complainant and hit the iron-pipe, which was in his hand on the left
flank of the complainant and the accused No. 2 gave one blow with the
pipe on the left leg of the complainant. Thereafter, early morning at
around 5 am, all the three accused were abusing and passing by the
house of the complainant and at that time witness Bharat restrained them
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1377/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2025
undefined
from using abusive language and the accused No. 3 caught hold of the
collar of the witness and the accused Nos. 1 and 2 assaulted him with
fists and caused him injuries and used abusive language and threatened
to kill them, if they would cultivate the land. The complainant Nanjibhai
Tabhabhai Vania filed the complaint at the Dhangadra Taluka Police
Station under Sections 323, 504, 506(2) and 114 of IPC, 1860 and
Section 3(i)(x) of the Atrocities Act, which was registered as II -
C.R.No. 3043 of 2012.
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, Dhrangadhra and as the said offences against the
accused was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the case was
committed to the Sessions Court, Dhrangadhra as per the provisions of
Section 209 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and case was registered
Special (Atrocities) Case No. 41 of 2012.
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
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1377/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2025
undefined
Exh. 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 sixteen 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. 52, 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
state 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.
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
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1377/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2025
undefined
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 Ms. Chetna Shah for the appellant State and
learned advocate Mr. Ashish Dagli appearing for the respondent Nos. 1, 2
and 3. Though served, the respondent No.4 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.
5. Learned APP Ms. Chetna Shah 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
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1377/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2025
undefined
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. Learned advocate Mr. Ashish Dagli appearing for the respondent
Nos. 1,2 and 3 submits that the judgments and order has been passed
after appreciation of all the evidence and the learned Court has
appreciated the evidence in proper perspective and hence, the appeal of
the appellant-State must be rejected.
7. 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,
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;
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1377/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2025
undefined
(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.
8. 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
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1377/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2025
undefined
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.
9. In light on the above settled principles of law and considering the
evidence on the prosecution, to bring home the charge against the
accused, the prosecution has examined Prosecution Witness No.1
Najibhai Tabhabhai at Exh.14, who is the complainant. The witness has
narrated all the facts of the complaint, which is produced at Exh.15. The
witness has stated that, after he was assaulted, they were taken to the
government hospital at Dhangadhra and thereafter they were referred to
Surendranagar for further treatment and he and his son had taken
treatment at TB Hospital Surendranagar where he was kept as an inward
patient for 5 days.
During the cross-examination, the witness has stated that the land
of Nanjibhai Narichanawala is survey No. 608 and it was tilled by
Gogubha a few days prior to the incident. In his further statement before
the Investigating Officer, the complainant had stated that the land was
tilled at around 3.30 am in the morning and there was a dispute regarding
the land taken for cultivation from Nanjibhai Narichanawala.
9.1 The prosecution has examined Prosecution Witness No. 2 -
Popatbhai Harjibhai at Exh.16 and Prosecution Witness No. 3 -
Maheshbhai Devsibhai Parmar at Exh.18 and both the witnesses are the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1377/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2025
undefined
panch-witnesses of the panchnama of the place of offence, which is
produced at Exh.17. Both the witnesses have not supported the case of
the prosecution and have been declared hostile.
9.2 Prosecution Witness No. 4 - Vasudevbhai Ratilal examined at
Exh. 19 and Prosecution Witness No. 5 - Maheshbhai Ramjibhai Tank
examined at Exh. 22 and both the witnesses are the panch-witnesses of
the arrest panchnama by which the accused were arrested which is
produced at Exh.20. Both the witnesses have not supported the case of
the prosecution and have been declared hostile and cross examined at
length by the learned APP but nothing to support the case of the
prosecution has come on record.
9.3 Prosecution Witness No. 6 - Vinodbhai Nanjibhai Vaniya
examined at Exh.23 is the son of the complainant and he has stated that,
on the day of the incident, they were sleeping at the agricultural field
when suddenly they heard some shouting and he and his brother woke up
and saw his father was being assaulted by Gogubha with a pipe. They
both ran to the place where his father was and intervened and the pipe,
which was in Gogubha's hand fell down and the pipe was taken by
Rajubhai and while he was taking his father towards the house he was
injured with the pipe on the left leg. They reached their house at about 5
to 5.30 am and he told his mother about the incident. That at that
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1377/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2025
undefined
time, all the three accused were passing by their house and the accused
No. 3 had caught the hold of the collar of Bharat and his mother
intervened and released Bharat from their clutches. The 108 Ambulance
was called and they were all taken to the hospital at Dhrangandhra and
thereafter they were referred to Surendranagar TB hospital.
During the cross-examination, the witness has stated that the
incident had occurred when Gogubha was tilling the land.
9.4 Prosecution Witness No. 7 - Bharatbhai Nanjibhai Vaniya
examined at Exh.24 is the son of the complainant, who has supported the
contents of the complainant and has stated that he was sleeping, when his
father was assaulted and he went to save him.
During the cross-examination, the witness has stated that prior to
the incident, the land was tilled and he, his father and his two brothers
were sleeping in the land near the borewell. At that time, at night
Gogubha was driving the tractor and tilling the land and there was a
verbal altercation between his father and the accused and they heard the
sounds and woke up.
9.5 Prosecution Witness No. 8 - Paluben Nanjibhai at Exh. 27,
Prosecution Witness No. 9 - Dudabhai Tabhabhai at Exh. 28 and
Prosecution Witness No. 10 - Danabhai Tabhabhai examined at Exh. 29
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1377/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2025
undefined
and all the witnesses were not eyewitnesses to the incident but they came
to know about the incident from the say of the complainant and his sons.
During the cross-examination, all the witnesses have stated that
they are not eyewitnesses to the incident but had heard about the incident
from some persons.
9.6 The prosecution has examined Prosecution Witness No. 11 -
Manjuben Shamjibhai at Exh. 29 and the witness has stated that at
around 5.30 in the morning she heard some sounds and she saw Gogubha
had caught the collar of Nanjibhai's son but thereafter she went into the
house and she does not know anything else. The mother of Bharat had
intervened and freed him from Gogubha.
9.8 The prosecution has examined Prosecution Witness No. 12 -
Vanrajsinh Dadubha at Exh. 30 and as per the case of the prosecution,
this witness was an eyewitness to the incident but he has not supported
the case of the prosecution and has been declared hostile and cross-
examined at length by the learned APP but nothing to support the case of
the prosecution has come on record.
9.9 The prosecution has examined Prosecution Witness No. 13 - Dr.
Shri Javlant Bhanushankar Joshi at Exh.34 and the witness was working
as a Medical Officer at C.U.Shah Medical College Hospital,
Surendranagar on 3.6.2012 and while he was on duty at around 10.19
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1377/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2025
undefined
Hrs., Nanjibhai Tabhabhai Vania resident of Jiva, Taluka: Dhangadra had
come for treatment to the hospital. In the history the witness has stated
that he was assaulted with an iron pipe in the morning at around 3.30 pm
near the field at Jiva by Ghoghabhai. The patient was conscious and
oriented and he had an imprint bruise over left flank measuring around
15 centimeter x 7 centimeter with skin discoloration. The patient was
admitted in casualty and his chest x-ray and x-rays were normal.
During the cross-examination, the witness has stated that if a
person is hit with an iron pipe on the flank, it would leave a mark and if a
person was trying to climb onto the tractor while running and if he is
injured, the injury as were found on the body of the patient could be
sustained.
9.10 Prosecution Witness No. 14 - Dr. Shri Anupkumar
Arvindkumar Jayswal examined at Exh. 39 was working at the
Government Hospital, Dharangadhra on 3.6.2012 when Vinodbhai
Nanjibhai Vania was brought for treatment at around 6.50 am without a
police yadi. The witness has stated that in the history, he had stated that
on 3.6.2012 at around 3.30 am, while he was working as a laborer in the
field of Vanuba Daduba Jhala, he was assaulted with an iron pipe and
when he went home they came to his house and threatened him and at
that time Raviraj Tejuba Jhala, Vishal Popat Jhala, Ghoghubha Bapalal
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1377/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2025
undefined
Jhala and Rajuba Tembha Jhala had assaulted him. On examination, the
witness had a reddish bruise mark on the back of left thigh, lower
extremity and the injury was a simple injury, which was fresh and could
be sustained by a hard and blunt object and the recovery would be within
5 days if no complication occurs. The witness has produced the injury
certificate of Vinodbhai Nanjibhai Vania at Exh.40. On the same day, at
the same time, Nanjibhai Tabhabhai Vania was brought to the hospital
and the history was given by the patient himself and he had stated that
Ghoghabhai Bapulal Jhala, Rajuba Temba Jhala all residents of village
Jiva, Taluka Dhrangadhra had assaulted him at 3.30 am on 3.6.2012 by
an iron pipe at the field of Vanuba Daduba Jhala in village Jiva where the
patient was working as a laborer. When the patient with other people
returned to his house after being assaulted by the above people, they
came to his residence and threatened that if he came out from his house
his residential place would be torched into flames. The persons
threatening him were Raviraj Tejuba Jhala, Vishal Popat Jhala,
Ghoghubha Bapulal Jhala and Rajuba Temba Jhala and they were all
residents of village Jiva. On examination the patient had pain with
reddish bruise plus reddish abrasion on left waist, on lower back on left
lateral side. The patient was referred to department of surgery CU Shah
Medical College, Surendranagar and the Taluka police were informed.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1377/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2025
undefined
The injuries could be sustained by a hard and blunt object and the
witness has produced the medical certificate at Exh.41. At the same time
patient Bharatpai Nanjipai Vania was brought at 6.50am and in the
history he had stated that Goguba Bapulal Jhala, Rajuba Temba Jhala,
Raviraj Tejuba Jhala and Vishal Popat Jhala had come to his house in
village Jiva and his multicoloured t-shirt was torn by the assailants and
he was threatened with murder and his house will be torched into flames.
On examination, a reddish nail abrasion mark was found on the left
forearm upper left extremity. The injury was a simple abrasion with a
nail and the probable recovery time was 5 days if no complication arises.
The witness has produced the medical certificate at exhibit 42. During
the cross-examination by the learned advocate for the accused the
witness has stated that the patients had come with Dudhabha Tabhubha
Vania and the complaint of pain could be imaginary.
9.11 Prosecution Witness No. 15 - Prakashbhai Mohanbhai
Bhaliya examined at Exh. 45 is the Investigating Officer who has
narrated in detail the procedure undertaken by him during investigation.
The witness has stated that the incident had occurred early in the
morning and it was regarding the agricultural land of Nanjibhai
Nariachanawala and in the investigation it was found that the land was
tilled by Ghoghubha with a tractor.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1377/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2025
undefined
9.12 Prosecution Witness No. 16 - Dalabhai Gagabhai Parghi
examined at Exh. 48 is the PSO who has registered the complaint and he
has produced the extract of the Station Diary at Exh.49.
10. On appreciation of the entire evidence of the prosecution, as per
the case of the prosecution, the incident has occurred at the field of
Nanjbhai Narichanawala at around 3.30 am when the complainant and
other labourers were working in the field and the second incident
occurred near their house at around 5 am. In the first incident, only the
accused Nos. 1 and 2 were present and in the second incident all the
three accused were present. If the panchnama of the place of offence
produced at Exh.17 is perused, the place of incident as shown by witness
Bharatbhai Nanjibhai Vania, was near the edge of the field of Vanrajsinh
Dadubha Jhala near the water bore in a vacant land. The water bore was
about 10 feet away and there was a small room at that place. As per the
panchnama, the land was tilled one day earlier. The incident has occurred
as per the complaint at 03.30 am, when only the complainant and his two
sons were present and the complainant was injured with an iron pipe on
his left flank and his son Vinodbhai was injured on the left leg with the
pipe. If, the medical certificate of witness Vinodbhai Nanjibhai produced
at Exh.40 and the medical certificate of the complainant Nanjibhai
Tabhabhai Vania produced at Exh.41 are perused, they are simple injuries
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1377/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2025
undefined
and the injury of Nanjibhai is a reddish abrasion on the left waist and
lower back, which could be sustained when trying to climb on a tractor
as per the opinion of the medical officer - Prosecution Witness No. 13
Dr. Jwalant Bhanushankar Joshi. The injuries of witness Bharat
Nanjibhai Vania are simple and there was a reddish nail abrasion mark on
his left forearm as per his say his collar was caught but there are no
injuries on the neck and, in the entire evidence, there appears to be an
exaggeration in the version of Prosecution Witness No. 6 Vinodbhai
Nanjibhai Vania and Prosecution Witness No. 7 Bharatbhai Nanjibhai
Vania. As per the complainant, he has stated that they were working in
the field at 3.30 am but both his sons Prosecution Witness No. 6
Vinodbhai Nanjibhai Vania and Prosecution Witness No. 7 Bharatbhai
Nanjibhai Vania have stated that they were sleeping and they heard the
sounds and they woke up and saw that his father was being assaulted by
the accused. In the evidence, the complainant does not say that any caste-
slurs or abuses were used by the accused and the second incident has
occurred in front of the house, which is the residential area but no
independent witnesses or neighbors have supported the case of the
prosecution. Prosecution Witness No. 6 Vinodbhai Nanjibhai Vania and
Prosecution Witness No. 7 Bharatbhai Nanjibhai Vania also do not state
that any caste-slurs were used by the accused and even otherwise at 3.30
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1377/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2025
undefined
am, there were no other persons in the field and it was not a public place.
In the history before the Medical Officer, the complainant and the injured
witnesses in the medical certificates produced at Exh.40, Exh.41 and
Exh.42 have named many more persons than the accused persons and it
has emerged on record that there was a dispute about the agricultural
land of Nanjibhai Govindbhai Vania that was taken for cultivation by the
complainant.
11. 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
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.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1377/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2025
undefined
12. The impugned judgement and order of acquittal passed by learned
4th (Ad-hoc) Additional Sessions Judge & Special Judge, Dhrangadhra in
Special (Atrocity) Case No. 41 of 2012 on 31.05.2014, is hereby
confirmed.
13. Bail bond stands cancelled. Record and proceedings be sent back
to the concerned Trial Court forthwith.
Sd/-
(S. V. PINTO,J)
VVM
