Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Savji Chelaji Rajput on 30 June, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1100/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/06/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1100 of 2012
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE S.V. PINTO
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting No
==========================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
SAVJI CHELAJI RAJPUT & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR. PRANAV DHAGAT, APP for the Appellant(s) No. 1
BAILABLE WARRANT SERVED for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3
MR TUSHAR CHAUDHARY(5316) 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 : 30/06/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. This appeal is 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 Special Judge, Banaskantha at Palanpur
(hereinafter referred to as "the learned Trial Court") in
Special Atrocity Case No. 24/2011 on 13.04.2012, whereby,
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1100/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/06/2025
undefined
the learned Trial Court has acquitted the respondents for
the offence punishable under Sections 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 Act" for short).
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 Hiraben wife of Mafabai Bhikhabai
Vankar was the joint owner of land bearing survey no.
273/A/1 paiki 4 situated in the outskirts of Dalawana
village and the land was mortgaged by a document dated
12.07.2000 to the accused no. 1 - Rajput Sawaji Chelaji for
Rs. 74,000/-. As per the condition of the mortgage, the
possession of the land was to be returned whenever the
amount of Rs. 74,000/- was returned and when the
complainant had the amount of Rs. 74,000/-, she went to
give the same to the accused no. 1 - Sawaji Rajput but he
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1100/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/06/2025
undefined
did not accept the same and did not give possession of the
land. A notice through her advocate was sent on 19.02.2011
and cheque no. 596472 dated 17.02.2011 for Rs. 74,000/-
from the account with State Bank of India was offered to the
accused no. 1 - Sawaji Rajput but he did not accept the
same. On 11.03.2011 at around 11.00 hours, the
complainant - Hiraben wife of Mafabai Bhikhabai Vankar,
her sons - Girishbhai and Praveenbhai and her brother-in-
law - Laxmanbhai Veerabhai Parmar went to the
agricultural land and the accused were present at the land.
The accused hurled caste slurs against them, abused them
and threatened to kill and bury them alive. The complainant
and others were afraid and the complainant came to Chhapi
Police Station and filed the complaint under Sections 504,
506(2), 114 of the IPC and Section 3(1)(10) of the Atrocity
Act which came to be registered as Chhapi Police Station II -
C.R. No. 3012/2011.
2.2 The Investigating Officer recorded the statements of
the connected witnesses and seized the necessary
documents and after completion of investigation, a charge-
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1100/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/06/2025
undefined
sheet came to be filed before the Court of the Judicial
Magistrate First Class, Vadgam and as the said offences
against the accused were exclusively triable by the Court of
Sessions, the case was committed to the Sessions Court,
Banaskantha at Palanpur as per the provisions of Section
209 of Code of Criminal Procedure and the case was
registered as Special Atrocity Case No. 24/2011.
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
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 were recorded at
Exhs. 6, 7 and 8 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 6 witnesses and produced
16 documentary evidences on record in support of their
case and after the learned Additional Public Prosecutor filed
the closing pursis at Exh. 39, the further statement of the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1100/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/06/2025
undefined
accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 was recorded. 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
the accused from all the charges leveled 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
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
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1100/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/06/2025
undefined
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 Mr. Pranav Dhagat for the
appellant State and learned advocate Mr. Tushar
Chaudhary for the respondents. 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 Mr. Pranav Dhagat 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. Tushar Chaudhary for the
respondent nos. 1 to 3 has submitted that the learned Trial
Court has appreciated the evidence and passed the
impugned judgement and order and no interference is
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1100/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/06/2025
undefined
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:
"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".
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1100/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/06/2025
undefined
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.
(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
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1100/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/06/2025
undefined
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 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.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1100/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/06/2025
undefined
8. In light of the above settled principle of law, the
evidence of the prosecution is dissected and the
prosecution has examined PW1 - Hiraben Mafabhai Jadav
at Exh. 14 and the witness is the complainant who has
narrated the facts as stated in the complaint which is
produced at Exh. 15. The complainant has also produced
her caste certificate at Exh. 16 and the copy of village form
no. 7/12 of the disputed land at Exh. 17. During the cross
examination by the learned advocate for the accused the
witness has stated that the possession of the land was
handed over to the accused no. 1 on 12.07.2000 and he
was in possession of the land till date. At the time when the
land was handed over to the accused no. 1, it had potholes
and the accused no. 1 levelled the land for cultivation. As
per the document, the cost of levelling the land was to be
paid to the accused no. 1 and the complainant had gone
five months prior to the date of incident to pay the amount
of Rs. 74,000/- to the accused no. 1. The complainant has
stated that she had gone on the day of the incident to take
possession of the land and on the previous day she had met
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1100/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/06/2025
undefined
her advocate and her advocate had told her to file a police
complaint and hence, she had gone and filed the police
complaint as per the advice of the advocate. That after the
document was executed, she had often gone to the land and
met the accused no. 1 and she had written the complaint
as told to her by her son Girish.
8.1 The prosecution has examined PW2 - Pravinbhai
Mafabhai Parmar at Exh. 27 and the witness is the son of
the complainant and has fully supported the case of the
prosecution. During the cross examination by the learned
advocate for the accused the witness has stated that as per
the document produced at Exh. 19, condition no. 4 was
that the expenses that had occurred in levelling the land
was to be borne by the accused no. 1 and that amount was
to be added in Rs. 74,000/-. That earlier the accused had
told them that he was not returning the possession of the
land but he went along with his mother, brother and uncle
to take possession of the land on the date of the incident.
8.2 PW3 - Girishbhai Mafabai Parmar examined at Exh.
28 is the son of the complainant who has fully supported
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1100/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/06/2025
undefined
the case of the prosecution. During the cross examination
by the learned advocate for the accused the witness has
stated that he has not verified whether the amount of
cheque has been deducted from his brother's account and
has admitted that the amount was not withdrawn from his
brother's account. The accused no. 1 had sent a reply to
the notice and had refused to handover possession of the
disputed land to them and in his statement before the
police, he has not stated that the accused had told them
that he would give the possession of the land after Diwali as
there were some crops growing in the same.
8.3 The prosecution has examined PW4 - Laxmanbhai
Virabhai Parmarat Exh. 31 and the witness is the brother-
in-law of the complainant, who as per the case of the
prosecution had gone along with the complainant to take
possession of the disputed agricultural land from the
accused at the time of the incident. The witness has fully
supported the case of the prosecution and during the cross
examination by the learned advocate for the accused he has
stated that as per condition no. 4 of the document, the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1100/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/06/2025
undefined
expenses incurred in levelling the land was to be borne by
the accused no. 1 and that amount was to be added in Rs.
74,000/-. The amount of cheque was not deducted from the
account of his nephew Praveenbhai Parmar.
8.4 PW5 - Chirag Bhagwandas Tandel examined at Exh.
33 has stated that he was working as a PSI at Chhapi
Police Station when the complainant had come and he had
recorded the complaint of the complainant which is
produced at Exh. 15. The complaint was registered by the
PSO at under Sections 504, 506(2) and 114 of the IPC and
Section 3(1)(10) of the Atrocity Act at Chhapi Police Station
II - C.R. No. 3012/2011.
8.5 The prosecution has examined PW6 - Rameshbhai
Ishwarbhai Patel at Exh. 36 and the witness is the
Investigating Officer who has narrated the procedure
undertaken by him during investigation. During the cross
examination the witness has stated that during
investigation it was found that the complainant and the
witnesses had gone to the disputed land to take possession
of the same and during investigation the mortgage deed as
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1100/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/06/2025
undefined
also the notice and other documents were given by the
complainant. During investigation he did not verify whether
the amount mentioned in the cheque was deducted from
the account or not and he had taken over investigation of
the offence as per the order of the Superintendent of Police,
Banaskanta at Palanpur which is produced at Exh. 37.
9. On minute appreciation of the entire evidence of the
prosecution, the evidence that has emerged on record is
that the agricultural land of the complainant was
mortgaged to the accused no. 1 by a deed dated 11.07.2000
and the possession of the property was with the accused
no. 1 since that date. As per the condition no. 4 mentioned
in the mortgage deed at Exh. 19, the expenses for levelling
the land proper was to be paid by the accused no. 1 and
that amount was to be added to the amount of Rs.
74,000/-. There is no evidence on record as to what
amount was spent by the accused no. 1 and the notice sent
by the complainant and her sons to the accused no. 1 is
produced at Exh. 20 and by the document produced at
Exh. 24, the accused no. 1 had replied to the notice. There
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1100/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/06/2025
undefined
was a civil dispute going on between the parties and the
complainant wanted the possession of the land that was
mortgaged with the accused no. 1 and the accused no. 1
had to take the amount of Rs. 74,000/- and the expenses
that were incurred by him and on the date of the complaint,
the complainant and the other witnesses had gone to the
place to take the possession of the land from the
complainant. As per the panchnama of the place of offence
which is produced at Exh. 29, the incident had occurred
near the agricultural field of the property and as per the say
of the complainant at that time only the accused,
complainant and her family members were present. If the
deposition of the complainant produced at Exh. 14 is
perused, the complainant has not uttered a single word
about any abuses or caste slurs used by the accused at the
time of the incident and the entire civil dispute has been
narrated in detail by her. Moreover, the complainant herself
has admitted that she had gone to take the advice of her
advocate and her advocate had advised her to file a police
complaint if she wanted to take possession of the land that
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1100/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/06/2025
undefined
was mortgaged from the accused and hence, she went on
the next day and filed the complaint as per the advice of her
advocate. Moreover, her son Girish had told her what has to
be mentioned in the complaint. In the entire evidence, there
is nothing on record to suggest that any abuses were used
by the accused or any caste slurs that were used by the
accused at the time of the incident and there is nothing on
record to suggest that any threats were uttered by the
accused.
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
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
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1100/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/06/2025
undefined
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, Banaskantha at
Palanpur in Special Atrocity Case No. 24/2011 on
13.04.2012, 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
