Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Ramchandra Chandrapal Yadav on 4 June, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1492/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/06/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1492 of 2009
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MAULIK J.SHELAT
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
✔
==========================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
RAMCHANDRA CHANDRAPAL YADAV & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS JIRGA JHAVARI, ADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the Appellant(s) No.
1
MR NACHIKET D MEHTA(6529) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No.
1,2,3
UNSERVED EXPIRED (N) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 3
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MAULIK J.SHELAT
Date : 04/06/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. The present acquittal appeal has been filed by the State
under Section-378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973,
challenging the judgment and order dated 06.05.2009 passed
by the Court of learned Special and Additional Sessions Judge,
Vadodara (hereinafter referred to as "the Trial Court") in
Special (Ele.) Case No.31 of 2008. By way of the impugned
judgment and order, Accused have been acquitted of all the
charges levelled against them under Sections-136(1)(A) read
with Section 150 of the Electricity Act, 2003.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1492/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/06/2025
undefined
2. The short facts emerging from the record, reads as
under:-
2.1. It is the case of prosecution that at relevant point of
time, when the complainant - Deputy Engineer was
discharging his duties with MGVCL, Karjan, during that
period, one sub division and transformer of Gujarat Vij
Company of 25 KVA was installed in the field of one Shri
Manubhi Patel. It is further the case of the prosecution that
prior to 17.03.2008, 120 ltrs. oil of transformer valued at
Rs.4800/- as well as 160 kgs. LT HT winding coil valued at
Rs.21,400/- has been stolen and accordingly, on 17.03.2008,
lineman one Shri. K.R. Patel has drawn necessary panchnama
as well prepared map of spot of incident in the presence of
Panch Witness then after a police complaint was filed and on
the basis of aforesaid complaint, investigation was carried out
and offence was registered before MGVCL Police Station,
Gotri at Vadodara.
2.2. It is further noted that during watch at Bharuch -
Jadeshwar Road, near Tolnaka, one Esteem Car bearing
No.GJ-05-AM-2971 found suspicious and was detained and
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1492/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/06/2025
undefined
checked. However, the driver of the car ran away from the
spot of incident, whereas three persons caught red handed
with muddamal. It is further the case of prosecution that
during search, muddamal which was stolen, was found from
trunk of the car detained and accordingly, an offence under
Section 41(1)(d) was registered against respondents accused
and intimation was given to MGVCI Police Station, Gotri.
Vadodara.
2.3. The police recorded statement of witnesses and as there
was sufficient evidence connecting respondents with crime,
charge-sheet came to be filed before the Court of learned
Judicial Magistrate First Class, Karjan and the same was
committed to the Court of learned Special and Addl. Sessions
Vadodara.
3. The prosecution led following oral and documentary
evidences in support of it's case and to bring home the
charges against Accused persons.
Oral Evidences of Prosecution
Sr. No. Name and Particulars Exh.
Engineer, Complainant
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1492/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/06/2025
undefined
Ranchhodbhai
(Panchsahed)
(S.O.G. Bharuch)
Documentary Evidences
Sr.No. Document Particulars Exh.
4. After conducting the Trial and appreciating the evidence
on record, the Trial Court has found that prosecution has
failed to establish the case and not able to prove the charges
beyond doubt, thereby acquitted the Accused from all the
charges levelled against them.
5. Heard learned Additional Public Prosecutor Ms.Jirga
Jhaveri for Appellant - State.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1492/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/06/2025
undefined
5.1. Learned APP Ms.Jirga Jhaveri would submit that Trial
Court has committed a serious error of law by acquitting
accused in a case where the charges are successfully proved
by prosecution against them. It is further submitted that
goods which were stolen were recovered from accused and
recovery of stolen goods has been proved on record, there
was no reason for the Trial Court to give any benefit of doubt
in favour of accused.
5.2. Learned APP would further submit that merely because
driver of the Maruti Esteem Car ran away from the spot would
not give any benefit of doubt to the accused so far as in
relation to commission of crime is concerned. It is further
submitted that merely some minor contradiction in complaint
as well as Panchnama in relation to the actual stolen goods
would not mean that there was no theft of article belongs to
Electricity Company.
6. Before dealing with merit of the appeal, at this stage, I
would first like to remind myself the position of law
propounded by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Babu
Sahebagouda Rudragoudar and Others vs. State of
Karnataka [(2024) 8 SCC 149] has held as under:
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1492/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/06/2025
undefined
"39. This Court in the case of Rajesh Prasadv.
State of Bihar and Another, (2022) 3 SCC 471
encapsulated the legal position covering the field
after considering variousearlier judgments and held
as below: -
"29. After referring to a catena of judgments, this
Court culled out the following general principles
regarding the powers of the appellate court while
dealing with an appeal against an order of
acquittal in the following words: (Chandrappa
case [ Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka, (2007) 4
SCC 415 ]
" 42. From the above decisions, in our considered
view, the following general principles regarding
powers of the 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 Criminal Procedure Code, 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 emphasise 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.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1492/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/06/2025
undefined
(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 is 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."
40. Further, in the case of H.D. Sundara & Ors. v.
State of Karnataka, (2023) 9 SCC 581 this Court
summarized the principles governing the exercise of
appellate jurisdiction while dealing with an appeal
against acquittal under Section 378 of CrPC as
follows: -
"8.1.The acquittal of the accused further
strengthens the presumption of innocence;
8.2. The appellate court, while hearing an appeal
against acquittal, is entitled to reappreciate the
oral and documentary evidence;
8.3. The appellate court, while deciding an
appeal against acquittal, after re- appreciating
the evidence, is required to consider whether the
view taken by the Trial Court is a possible view
which could have been taken on the basis of the
evidence on record;
8.4. If the view taken is a possible view, the
appellate court cannot overturn the order of
acquittal on the ground that another view was
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1492/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/06/2025
undefined
also possible; and
8.5. The appellate court can interfere with the
order of acquittal only if it comes to a finding
that the only conclusion which can be recorded
on the basis of the evidence on record was that
the guilt of the accused was proved beyond a
reasonable doubt and no other conclusion was
possible."
41. Thus, it is beyond the pale of doubt that the scope
of interference by an appellate Court for reversing
the judgment of acquittal recorded by the Trial Court
in favour of the accused has to be exercised within
the four corners of the following principles:-
41.1 That the judgment of acquittal suffers from
patent perversity; 41.2 That the same
misreading/omission to evidence on record; is based
on a consider material
41.3 That no two reasonable views are possible and
only the view consistent with the guilt of the accused
is possible from the evidence available on record.
42. The appellate Court, in order to interfere with the
judgment of acquittal would have to record pertinent
findings on the above factors if it is inclined to
reverse the judgment of acquittal rendered by the
Trial Court."
7. At the outset, it is required to be taken note of the fact
that a crucial witness who ought to have been examined by
the prosecution is Manubhai Shankarbhai Patel from whose
farm goods were stolen i.e. transformer, but, surprisingly, he
was not being examined by prosecution. So, factum of alleged
theft of transformer, its coil and oil are not successfully
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1492/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/06/2025
undefined
proved by prosecution.
7.1. It is further noticed that alleged transformer which was
stolen from the farm of said Manubhai though recovered from
Maruti Esteem Car wherein presence of accused were found
which is confirmed from Panchnama, but, prosecution has
failed to establish one crucial fact that such recovery of stolen
articles were in a conscious possession of all the three
accused.
7.2. Nothing on record except recovery of goods from car
whereby it can be proved beyond doubt that accused have in
fact either stolen or purchased the stolen goods as the case
may be and having its conscious possession. Further, driver of
Esteem car ran away at the time of interception by police
personnel whereby it has not came on record as to whether
stolen articles recovered were in fact carried at the instance
of the accused or the driver of Maruti Esteem car as the case
may be.
7.3. These are the glaring defects remain on the part of the
prosecution which resulted into weakening its case and
ultimately resulted into granting benefit of doubt to accused,
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1492/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/06/2025
undefined
consequently given acquittal by the Trial Court.
8. Thus, in view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances,
even after independently re-appreciating the evidence on
record, I am of the view that observations, reasons and
findings so recorded by Trial Court is neither perverse nor
erroneous and in any case not contrary to settled principle of
law thereby no interference is required by this Court while
exercising its appellate powers under Section 378 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure.
9. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed. Resultantly, the
impugned judgment and order of the Trial Court is hereby
confirmed. Bail bond, if any, shall stand cancelled. Record and
proceedings, if called for, be sent back to the concerned Trial
Court forthwith.
(MAULIK J.SHELAT,J)
Bhoomi
