Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Bhurubha Raghubha Vaghela on 24 June, 2025
Author: Umesh A. Trivedi
Bench: Umesh A. Trivedi
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1946/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/06/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1946 of 2010
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH A. TRIVEDI Sd/-
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
✓
==========================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
BHURUBHA RAGHUBHA VAGHELA & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS. MEGHA CHITALIYA, ADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the
Appellant(s) No. 1
NOTICE SERVED for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 2
RULE SERVED for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH A. TRIVEDI
Date : 24/06/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
[1] This is an Appeal filed by the State of Gujarat under
Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short
'the Code') challenging the judgment and order of acquittal
passed by the learned Special Judge, Dhrangadhra,
Surendranagar dated 25.08.2010 in Special Case No.1 of 2009,
whereby respondent No.1 - accused came to be acquitted of the
charges levelled against him for the offences punishable under
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1946/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/06/2025
undefined
Sections 504 and 506(2) of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC')
as also under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short
'the Atrocities Act').
[2] During the pendency of this appeal, with a request of
learned APP, respondent No.2 - original first informant was
joined as party respondent No.2. Endorsement on the cause-list
shows that respondent No.2 is served. However, he is neither
present in person or through an advocate. At the same time,
notice of admission of this appeal is also served upon respondent
No.1- accused but he is also not present in person or through an
advocate. Therefore, with the help of the learned APP, hearing of
this appeal was taken up.
[3] As per the case of the prosecution, on 25.09.2008 at
about 5:00 p.m., the first informant of the case went to Gram
Panchayat Office of Village- Jegadva to represent about damage
to his house due to heavy rain in the village before persons who
had come from the Taluka Office carrying out the survey. It is
the prosecution's case that when first informant stated about
carrying out survey of his house, accused got enraged, abused
and administered threat of dire consequences. Despite,
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1946/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/06/2025
undefined
according to the case of the prosecution, accused was knowing
that first informant is of scheduled caste, he uttered abusive
word towards his caste in public place within public view.
Therefore, according to the case of the prosecution, accused
committed aforesaid offences.
[3.1] On FIR for the offences being registered and on
conclusion of the investigation, charge-sheet has come to be
filed. Charge against the accused came to be framed vide
Exhibit-3. However, accused did not plead guilty, and claimed to
be tried.
[3.2] To prove the case of the accused, prosecution
examined 9 witnesses and produced and proved nearly 7
documents. Out of 9 witnesses examined, 3 are panch witnesses
and 2 are police witnesses. So far as panch witnesses are
concerned, panch witness to the panchnama of arrest and
physical condition of the accused has supported the case of the
prosecution but physical condition of the accused and arrest as
stated at the time and date is not disputed. Therefore, his
deposition, so far as offence is concerned, is not relevant.
However, 2 panch witnesses, (PW-2) - Ashokbhai Muljibhai
Rathod and (PW-3) - Mohanbhai Govindbhai Rathod, they are
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1946/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/06/2025
undefined
panch witnesses to the scene of offence panchnama. However,
during the course of recording evidence, they have not supported
the case of the prosecution. They are panch witnesses to the
scene of offence panchnama. However, to the deposition of even
investigating officer, that panchnama can be proved and
therefore, place where offence occurred is also not in dispute,
despite panch witnesses to the scene of offence panchanama,
have turned hostile, it loses its significance.
[3.3] 2 Police witnesses have stated about their official
duties carried out, however, out of 4 important witnesses
including first informant (PW-4) - Chaturbhai Galabhai, 2 eye
witnesses (PW-5) - Hirabhai Chhaganbhai Rathod who is of the
caste of the first informant, has also not supported the case of
the prosecution. Though, at Panchayat Office accused -
Bhurubha arrived and told that "torn off the papers and no
survey is to be carried out", there is no dispute. Furthermore,
accused- Bhurubha abused first informant - Chaturbhai as also
(PW-5) - Hirabhai Chhaganbhai Rathod, however, there is no
further evidence of eye witness - Hirabhai Chhaganbhai Rathod
so far as alleged incident of committing an offence under 'the
Atrocities Act' or 'IPC'. To that part of the evidence, witness has
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1946/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/06/2025
undefined
not supported the case of the prosecution.
[3.4] One Karsanbhai Parshottambhai Makwana (PW-6)
who was Sarpanch at the relevant time and present at the
scene of offence has also not supported the case of the
prosecution so far as alleged incident is concerned. On the
contrary, except there is some verbal altercation between the
accused and first informant, there appears no evidence on
record. Remaining witness (PW-7) - Jagdishbhai Khushalbhai
Kanjiya who is Talati-cum-Mantri, though he has not been
declared hostile but he appears to be not a witness to the
incident as he claimed that in his presence, no incident has
occurred. These are the witnesses examined before the Court to
prove the case against the accused.
[4] Ms. Megha Chitaliya, learned APP submitted that so
far as deposition of first informant is concerned, he has fully
supported the first information given by him and deposed to
before the Court about the incident and the author of the
incident. He has identified the accused before the Court. He has
deposed to before the Court about utterances made by the
accused, which insults the caste of the first informant, that too,
in public place within public view. Not only that, (PW-5) -
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1946/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/06/2025
undefined
Hirabhai Chhaganbhai Rathod though has not supported the
main case about insult to the caste, accused abused both of
them, he has supported the case. Therefore, she has submitted
that the deposition of the first informant inspiring confidence,
even if other eye-witnesses have turned hostile, accused can be
convicted for the offences alleged.
[5] Having heard the learned APP and going through the
judgment as also the evidence, let me re-appreciate the evidence
led before the Court for determination of this acquittal appeal.
[6] As stated hereinabove, 3 panch witnesses out of total
9 witnesses, their deposition has no relevance as panch witness
who has supported the case of the prosecution, is a panch to the
physical condition of the accused on arrest panchnama. There
appears no dispute about the arrest of the accused in connection
with the present offence and his physical condition at that time.
However, it has nothing to do with the main offence alleged
against the him.
[7] Other two panch witnesses are witnesses to the scene
of offence panchnama, who have not supported the case of the
prosecution but that again is of no consequence as there also
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1946/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/06/2025
undefined
appears evidence in respect of alleged offence taking place at
Panchayat Office. Coming to the deposition of star witness of the
prosecution, being first informant (PW-4) - Chaturbhai Galabhai,
who has stated in his examination-in-chief that Surveyors from
Dhrangadhra had come to assess damage because of flood in the
village, and therefore, he went there to represent about not
surveying damage to his house. Therefore, he went to Panchayat
Office. He has deposed to before the Court that (PW-6) -
Karshanbhai Parshottambhai, Sarpanch of the Village, and
(PW-7) - Jagdishbhai Kushalbhai, Talati-cum-Mantri were
present in the Panchayat Office. He represented them about the
survey of his house. The persons who had come to survey the
damage, have refused to survey. At that time, according to
witness, accused - Bhurubha assaulted him. He has also uttered
certain words insulting about his caste which he deposed to
before the Court in the Office i.e. public place within public view.
Why accused did that is also known to the accused and not by
him. Thereafter, he lodged the complaint which he confirmed the
same and content of it is also being confirmed, it was exhibited
at Exhibit-13. He identified the accused before the Court. So far
as caste certificate is concerned, it is also shown to him and
exhibited at Exhibit-14.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1946/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/06/2025
undefined
[8] However, his cross-examination is most relevant as
he is the eye-witness and the victim to the incident and there
appears no other evidence to support his assertion. He has
admitted in his cross-examination that he and the accused are
staying in the very village since their birth. He has further
admitted that they know each other even prior to the incident.
He has denied the suggestion that prior to the incident, there
was no any verbal altercation between them. He is very candid
that before the incident, there was verbal altercation with the
accused in respect of the boundary of the field, though the said
altercation took place before 2-3 years. There was demarcating
sign at the boundary which was not found and therefore,
altercation took place when it was asked to the first informant by
the accused. He has further admitted that for carrying out the
work of survey assessing the damage by flood in the village,
accused was not entrusted any work. He has further admitted
that he received Rs.3,000/- as compensation from Social Welfare
Department for filing this complaint. This is the nature of
deposition of the first informant before the Court.
[9] While assessing his deposition, learned Judge has
sought for corroboration as first informant has an axe to grind
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1946/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/06/2025
undefined
against the accused. As admitted by him in his cross-
examination, field of the accused as also the first informant have
common boundary. Prior to incident also, there was one verbal
altercation between them in respect of marking at the boundary.
Though for that, at the relevant time, no complaint was ever
filed, fact remains that they are staying in the same village since
their birth having field with common boundary and verbal
altercation in respect of the marking of it. Thus, it is clear that
when accused was not involved in the work of any survey in the
village by the person who had come from Taluka Office for
survey of the damage, there is no question of accused rushing to
the Panchayat Office and objecting to the survey being carried
out of the residence of the first informant.
[10] Not only that, Sarpanch of the village as also (PW-7) -
Jagdishbhai, who was Talati-cum-Mantri, who was present as
per the deposition of the first informant himself when the
incident occurred, have not supported the case of the
prosecution. That shows that in their presence, as admitted by
them in their deposition, no such incident has ever occurred.
Karshanbhai being Sarpanch of the village and Jagdishbhai
being independent person - Talati-cum-Mantri of that village,
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1946/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/06/2025
undefined
has nothing to favour either the accused or the first informant
but fact remains that assertion made by the first informant is
not supported by deposition of independent office bearer of the
Village Panchayat, one as Sarpanch and another as Talati-cum-
Mantri. Not only that, so far as main incident part is concerned,
the very caste fellow of the first informant - (PW-5) - Hirabhai
Chhaganbhai Rathod has also not supported the case of the first
informant in respect of assertion made by him in his deposition.
Not only that, except accused abused first informant and witness
- Hirabhai Chhaganbhai Rathod, nothing has happened as
claimed by him in his examination-in-chief prior to he being
declared hostile. He was very candid in his examination-in-chief
that at the Panchayat Office someone uttered some words is not
known to him as he went out of the Panchayat Office.
[11] Considering the relations of the accused and the
victim, strained because of the verbal altercation of the boundary
at the field, as held by the learned Judge, a possibility cannot be
ruled out that a false case in respect of the offence is foisted
upon the accused. Though, verbal altercation might have taken
place at the Panchayat Office between the accused and the first
informant, so far as incident under 'the Atrocities Act' uttering
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1946/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/06/2025
undefined
word insulting the caste of the first informant in public place
within public view is concerned, there is no corroborative
evidence led by the prosecution and therefore, it creates doubt
about the proof thereof. Therefore, learned Judge has, while
recording an order of acquittal, given benefit of doubt to the
accused.
[12] On overall re-appreciation and rereading of the
evidence led before the Court, I also see no reason to interfere
with the well-reasoned order passed by the learned Judge, giving
benefit of doubt so far as alleged offence is concerned. Even if
two views are possible, in an acquittal appeal, view favourable to
the accused is to be accepted. It cannot be said that any other
view is possible except giving benefit of doubt, which has been
given by the learned Judge while acquitting accused.
[13] In view thereof, the appeal being without any merit, it
is hereby dismissed. Record and Proceedings be sent back to the
concerned Trial Court, if any.
(UMESH A. TRIVEDI, J.)
Lalji Desai
