Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Patel Rameshbhai Manilal on 23 June, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/911/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/06/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL (AGAINST ACQUITTAL) NO. 911 of 2015
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE S.V. PINTO
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
No
==========================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
PATEL RAMESHBHAI MANILAL & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS. DHWANI TRIPATHI, APP for the Appellant(s) No. 1
RULE SERVED for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1,2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE S.V. PINTO
Date : 23/06/2025
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 the learned Sessions Judge,
Mahesana (hereinafter referred to as "the learned Trial Court") in
Sessions Case No. 73 of 2013 on 20.04.2015, whereby, the learned Trial
Court has acquitted the respondents for the offence punishable under
Sections 323, 325 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) as well
as Section 135 of the Gujarat Police Act (hereinafter referred to as "the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/911/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/06/2025
undefined
G.P.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] On 18-11-2012, at around 16.30 hours, the complainant
Vihabhai Ramdas Vandas was in his agricultural land and was putting
water in the water line of the machine placed in this agricultural land and
at that time, the accused came and told him not to put water in the
pipeline and to take his machine from there. The accused No. 1 one got
agitated and hit the stick, which was in his hand on the face of the
complainant and one teeth of the complainant broke.The accused No. 2
took the sword, which was in his hand and hit it on the wrist of the left
hand of the complainant and abused the complainant and asked him to
leave the place. The complainant took his tractor and went home and he
was taken to Civil Hospital, Bechraji for treatment where he filed the
complaint under Sections 325, 323 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code,
1860 and Section 135 of the Gujarat Police Act, which was registered as
Bechraji Police Station I-C.R.No. 98 of 2012.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/911/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/06/2025
undefined
2.2] The Investigating Officer recorded the statements of the
connected witnesses and collected the necessary documents and after
completion of investigation the police filed the chargesheet against the
accused before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bechraji and
as the said offences against the accused was exclusively triable by the
Court of Sessions, the case was committed to the Sessions Judge,
Mehsana as per the provisions of Section 209 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure and the case was registered Sessions Case No. 73 of 2013.
2.3] The prosecution filed the following oral evidence as well as
documentary evidences to bring home the charge against the accused.
ORAL EVIDENCE
Sr. No Prosecution Name of the Prosecution Witness
Witness No.
1 11 Dr. Chandrakant Kailashpuri Goswami
2 16 Amratbhai Chaturbhai Patel
3 22 Visabhai Ramdas Patel
4 24 Nathhubhai Ranchhodbhai Patel
DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES
Sr. No Exhs Particulars
1 12 Recovery Certificate of Complainant
2 19 Arrest Panchnama
3 20 Depute Order
4 22 Panchnama of place of offence
5 23 Complaint
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/911/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/06/2025
undefined
6 27 Offence Report
7 28 Arrest Report
8 29 Copy of notification
2.4] That after the entire evidence of the prosecution was taken
on record, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor filed the closing
pursis at Exh; 30 and the further statement of the accused were recorded
wherein both the accused denied all the evidence and stated that a false
case has been filed against him.
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
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/911/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/06/2025
undefined
quashed and set aside.
4] Heard learned APP Ms. Dhwani Tripathi for the appellant -
State. Though served, the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have not appeared
either in person or though and 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. Dhwani Tripathi 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, which is corroborated by the deposition of the medical
officer 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. 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.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/911/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/06/2025
undefined
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
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.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/911/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/06/2025
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 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 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 Dr. Chandrakant Kailashpuri Goswami at
Exh.11 and the witness has stated that on 18th November 2012, he was
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/911/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/06/2025
undefined
on duty at around 6.45pm at the Community Health Centre, Bechraji
when Vihabhai Ramdas Patel was brought without police yadi for
treatment. In the history, he had stated that Rameshbhai Manilal Patel
and Rajnikant Rameshbhai Patel had assaulted him with a stick and a
sword respectively in the outskirts of Gabhu village. On examination,
there was a CLW 4 cm X 0.5 cm, skin deep transverse on the anterior
and lower aspect of left forearm and his incisor and his lower incisor
tooth was missing with bleeding from the gum and mobility of the
neighbour teeth. The injured was transferred to General Hospital,
Mehsana for further dental treatment. The injury could be sustained by a
hard and blunt substance as per his opinion, the injury and may take 10
to 12 days to heal if no complications arise. The witness has produced
the injury certificate at Exh:12.
During the cross-examination by the learned advocate for the
accused, the witness has stated that if the behind portion of the sword is
hit, a straight injury could be sustained but injury No. 1 was not straight
and it was an uneven zigzag injury. The injury could be sustained if a
person would jump over a hedge and dash against a hard and blunt
substance. The injury could also be sustained if someone was trying to
bite the thumb of another and the other person was trying to release his
hand. That if a person was hit with a stick on the face, he could lose a
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/911/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/06/2025
undefined
tooth and sustain injury in the inside and outside of the lips. There was
no injury to the inside or outside lip of the complainant and if a person
has someone's thumb between his teeth and the hand was pulled, he
could lose a teeth.
8.1 The prosecution has examined Prosecution Witness No. 2
Amratbhai Chaturbhai Patel at Exh:16 and the witness is the panch
witness of the arrest panchnama by which the accused were arrested,
which is produced at Exh:19. The witness has supported the case of the
prosecution and during the cross examination, the witness has stated that
the accused No. 1 was injured on the head and chest and there were
bandages over his body and both the accused were kept in the lockup
room. The stick that was shown to them was a new stick and the
weapons were lying on the table and he does not know where the police
had brought the weapons from. The police had told him that the
panchnama was a panchnama of the weapons and he has had affixed his
signature on the panchnama.
8.2 The prosecution has examined Prosecution Witness No. 3
Vihaben Ramdasbhai Patel at Exh:22 and the witness is the complainant,
who has narrated the facts of the complaint, which is produced at
Exh:23.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/911/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/06/2025
undefined
During the cross examination by the learned advocate for the
accused, the witness has stated that he had a fight with one Ramanbhai
about the water and there was a case filed against him that he had hit
Ramanbhai with a shovel. That a pipeline of about 500 meters is placed
from the borewell to take water to the agricultural land and one line was
going from the front of the agricultural land of the accused No. 1 and as
the borewell had failed, a new borewell was made in his land. On the
date of the incident, he was preparing a new tank in his field and Chaturji
Thakor and two other persons were the laborers. When the accused had
arrived, the work was going on, but none of the persons, who were
present there had intervened. That, he was not injured on his lip and the
accused No. 1 came and told him that the pipeline was of their old
partnership. That at that time he had a axe in his hand and the
complainant has denied that he had hit the accused No. 1 with the axe
and the accused No. 1 was injured on his head and chest for treatment.
8.3 The prosecution has examined Prosecution Witness No. 4
Naththubhai Ranchhoddas Patel at Exh:24 and the witness has stated that
on 18-11-2012, he was at his house when Vihabhai - the complainant
came and told him that the accused had quarreled with him and he was
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/911/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/06/2025
undefined
injured with the stick on his face and to take him to hospital. He and the
son of Vihabhai had taken him to the Civil Hospital, Bechraji.
During the cross examination by the learned advocate for the
accused, the witness has stated that he is not an eyewitness to the
incident and he has not seen the place, where, the pipeline was being
laid. That he had not seen any blood on the outside portion of the jaw of
the complainant and he does not know how the complainant had lost a
tooth.
8.4 The prosecution has examined Prosecution Witness No.5
Narshibhai Devjibhai Chaudhary at Exh:26 and the witness is the
Investigating Officer, who has narrated the procedure undertaken by him
during investigation.
During the cross examination by the learned advocate for the
accused, the witness has stated that the offence registered at Bechraji
Police Station I-C.R.No.99 of 2012 under Section 307 of the IPC has
been registered against the complainant and both the complaints were
filed because the work of the pipeline was being done without the
permission of the partners. That he does not know how many partners are
there besides the accused and he has not inquired about the other
partners. The accused No. 1 was seriously injured in the head and chest
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/911/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/06/2025
undefined
and was admitted in Sai Krupa Hospital and when the arrest panchnama
was prepared, the weapons were on the table. In the offence registered at
Bechraji Police Station I-C.R.No.99 of 2012, he had recorded the
statement of witness Rajnikantbhai who is the accused No. 2 in this case,
wherein, he had stated that Vihabhai - the complainant of this case had
assaulted his father with a shovel and his father had sustained injuries on
his head and his chest and Bipinbhai had intervened and Vihabhai had bit
the thumb of Bipinbhai.
9] On minute appreciation of the entire evidence of the prosecution,
the complainant is the sole witness, who has been examined by the
prosecution and as per the case of the prosecution, there were three other
persons, who were working in the field, but no independent witnesses
have been examined. The panchnama, which is produced at Exh:16 states
that the weapons were on the table and the accused were in the lockup
and the accused No. 1 was seriously injured on the head and on his chest.
In the evidence, it has emerged on record that a cross case at Bechraji
Police Station I-C.R.No.99 of 2012 registered under Section 307 of the
IPC was filed by the accused against the complainant Vihabhai and it has
come on record that the complainant had attacked the accused No. 1 with
his Axe and at that time the accused No. 2 and one Bipinbhai had
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/911/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/06/2025
undefined
intervened and the complainant had also assaulted them and the
complainant bit the thumb of Bipinbhai and Bipinbhai had pulled his
hand. As per the evidence of Prosecution Witness No.1 Dr.
Chandrakantbhai Kailaspuri Goswami, there was no injury on the outer
part of the lip or jaw of the complainant and if the complainant was
assaulted with a stick on his face, he would have sustained some injury
on the outer portion of the lip or inner portion of the lip. As per the
evidence, the complainant was treated at Bechraji and was thereafter
referred to General Hospital Mahesana for further treatment but the
Medical Officer of Civil Hospital Mahesana where the complainant was
treated, has not been examined and the evidence regarding the medical
treatment of the complainant has not come on record.
10] In view of the settled position of law in the decision 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 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
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/911/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/06/2025
undefined
committed by the learned trial Court and this Court is in complete
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 Sessions Judge, Mahesana in Sessions Case No. 73 of 2013 on
20.04.2015, 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
