Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Narendrasinh Batuksinh Gohil on 30 June, 2025
Author: Umesh A. Trivedi
Bench: Umesh A. Trivedi
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1604/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/06/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1604 of 2010
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH A. TRIVEDI
======================================
Approved for Reporting No Yes
No
======================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
NARENDRASINH BATUKSINH GOHIL & ORS.
======================================
Appearance:
MR SOAHAM JOSHI, ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the
Appellant(s) No. 1
MR JAYSINH R JADEJA(6542) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s)
No. 1,2,3
RULE SERVED for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 4
======================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH A. TRIVEDI
Date : 30/06/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
[1.0] This Appeal is filed by the State of Gujarat under
Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
(hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') challenging the
judgment and order of acquittal recorded by the Additional
Sessions Judge and Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court No.4,
Bhavnagar dated 29.01.2010 passed in Special Atrocity Case
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1604/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/06/2025
undefined
No.15 of 2005 whereby the respondents - accused have come
to be acquitted of the charges punishable under Sections 323,
365, 504, 506(2) and 114 of the Indian Penal Code as also
under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled
Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred
to as 'the Act').
[2.0] As per the case of the prosecution the
respondents - accused, on 26.10.2004, when complainant -
witness had gone for daily wage work in the field of
Mayabhai Bharwad and in the afternoon complainant came
back to his home for the purpose of having lunch, it is the
case of the prosecution that his brother Bhupatbhai
Kanjibhai had also come for lunch but after finishing the
same, he went back to the field of Mayabhai Bharwad while
first informant was at his home. Respondent no.1 - accused
who is known as Bhakabhai came to his house and asked his
mother where her sons Bhupatbhai and Ravjibhai are going
for daily wage. To the same, his mother replied that both
are going to the field of Mayabhai Bharwad. On hearing the
same, respondent no.1 - accused is said to have returned
back form the house of the complainant. Thereafter, he is
said to have reached Mayabhai's field and there his brother
was reprimanded by accused no.1, why he is not coming for
the daily wage work in his field. On so saying, accused no.1
is said to have given fist and kick blow to his brother.
[2.1] As coming out from the complaint, after the
aforesaid incident, when first informant was going to
Mayabhai Bharwad's field, on way accused no.1, Bhakabhai
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1604/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/06/2025
undefined
Darbar met him and started threatening him. Respondent
no.1 - accused, as per the case of the prosecution, made
him sit on his motorbike and went towards bushes of babool
tree where accused nos. 2 and 3 were present armed with
dhariya and stick respectively. On seeing that, as per the
case of the first informant, he jumped from the motorcycle
and went in the bushes. According to his case, all the three
ran towards him and abused him insulting his caste, and
therefore, he reached his home and informed his father. It is
his further case that on the date of the incident i.e.
26.10.2004 first informant had given one application against
all the three and police had obtained sureties from them
under the provisions of 'the Code'. It is further the case of
the prosecution that on the next day, all the three accused
came at their house at night and again administered threat
of dire consequences informing them to withdraw the case
filed or else they would be killed. For late filing of the
complaint, he has explained that they were waiting for
amicable resolution of the dispute, and therefore, no
complaint was filed. On such complaint being registered
and investigated, charge-sheet has come to be filed before
the competent Court against all the accused. Since case
was exclusively triable by the Special Court - Court of
Sessions, it was committed to the Court of Sessions. After
framing of the charge since accused did not plead guilty and
accused claimed to be tried, evidence came to be recorded
of 10 witnesses and certain documents were also produced.
On conclusion of trial, further statement of the accused were
recorded as per the provisions of 'the Code'.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1604/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/06/2025
undefined
[2.2] On hearing the submissions of learned Additional
Public Prosecutor as also learned advocate for the accused
and on appreciation of evidence led before it, learned Judge
has passed the aforesaid judgment and order of acquittal,
which is under challenge before this Court.
[3.0] The first informant was joined as party respondent
in this Appeal vide order dated 26.04.2023 as respondent
no.4.
[3.1] Endorsement on the cause list shows that rule is
served to respondent no.4. However, he is neither present
in person nor through an advocate. Mr. Jaysinh Jadeja,
learned advocate represents respondents - accused nos.1 to
3. However, when the matter is called out, he is not present
before the Court.
[3.2] Since this Appeal is of the year 2010, it was
determined to be taken up for hearing.
[4.0] Heard Mr. Soaham Joshi, learned Additional Public
Prosecutor. According to his submission, the reasons
recorded by the learned Judge that the insult to the caste of
victim, though at public place but it was not within the public
view as it has occurred in the sim of village, that too, in the
bushes of babool trees, there is no offence committed by the
accused under 'the Act', the said finding is erroneous.
[4.1] He has submitted that a place may be
uninhabited, though public place, it cannot be said that
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1604/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/06/2025
undefined
offence has not occurred within the public view. Therefore,
he has submitted that on this ground, when evidence is
consistent about the utterances made by the accused, no
order of acquittal could have been recorded by the learned
Judge, and therefore, interference of this Court in an
acquittal Appeal is required.
[4.2] He has further submitted that though first
informant is of Scheduled Caste but in FIR there is no
averment to the effect that the accused do not belong to
that caste, therefore, there is no offence committed is again
an erroneous finding. According to the submission of
learned Additional Public Prosecutor, reliance placed on the
judgment of the Bombay High Court by the learned Judge is
misplaced as it is not a good law in view of subsequent
decision of the Supreme Court where it is said that in
absence of such averment in the complaint about the caste
of the accused, no complaint can be quashed, and therefore,
on that ground alone, an order of acquittal is required to be
interfered with.
[4.3] He has further submitted that not only on the
date of incident, even on the next date, when the first
informant and all other family members were present in the
house at night hours, accused again came and threatened
them of dire consequences if first informant does not
withdraw the complaint filed a day earlier i.e. on 26.12.2004.
That shows the nature of the accused, and therefore, though
complaint may be filed after four days, fact remains that on
the very same day, it was in the form of an application as
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1604/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/06/2025
undefined
first informant was waiting for amicable resolution of the
dispute, which did not occur, and therefore, FIR came to be
registered, and therefore, on that ground also, no order of
acquittal can be recorded by the learned Judge.
[4.4] Since the learned advocate for respondents nos.1
to 3 - accused as also respondent no.4 - original first
informant is not present, Court had looked into their
probable cases with the help of learned Additional Public
Prosecutor.
[4.5] He has further submitted that the evidence of the
first informant is consistent, which is supported by evidence
of his brother, and therefore, even if other witnesses have
turned hostile, the case of two witnesses is also supported
by medical evidence, and therefore the accused were
required to be convicted of the charges levelled against
them.
[4.6] Therefore, he has submitted that as such, on
appreciation of evidence, there is only one view and even no
possibility of two views, this Court should interfere in the
judgment and order of acquittal recorded by the learned
Judge by allowing this Appeal and convicting the accused
appropriately for the offences committed by them.
[5.0] Having heard learned Additional Public Prosecutor
as also going through the judgment and order, evidence
adduced before the Court, in this Appeal against the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1604/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/06/2025
undefined
judgment and order of acquittal, reappreciation of the same
is required. To prove the case against the accused,
prosecution has examined P.W. 1 - Dr. Pravinkumar Sinha at
Exh.9. As per his deposition on 01.11.2004, injured
Bhupatbhai Shamjibhai had come with police yadi for the
purpose of treatment. On history being asked, he informed
that on 26.10.2004 accused no.1 - Hakabhai Batuksinh Gohil
gave him fist blow. Doctor found swelling with bruise with
tenderness on left lower chest. However, he found age of
injury to be remote. In a cross examination undertaken by
the learned advocate on behalf of the accused, he has
admitted that even if someone falls on ground said injury is
possible. The aforesaid certificate issued by the Doctor
came to be exhibited at Exh.10 in the case.
[5.1] However, from the same, it is revealed that
because of fist blow being administered on 26.10.2004
injured has never complained to anyone about his injury.
Not only that, on First Information Report being filed by his
brother perhaps he claimed to be injured and obtained
police yadi, for the purpose of treatment. Though complaint
came to be registered on 30.10.2004, may be at night hours
with police yadi injured Bhupatbhai had gone to the hospital
on 01.11.2004 though no time is mentioned. If at all there
was any such serious injury, that too, by accused no.1,
immediately injured Bhupatbhai could have registered the
complaint on that very day and could have obtained
treatment from the Police. The excuse shown by his brother
since they are staying in a village and there may not be any
instance of any breach of peace in the village, they were
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1604/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/06/2025
undefined
waiting for amicable resolution of the dispute is again an
excuse but not a ground for not filing a complaint
immediately and getting treatment for the injuries received.
Here it is not the case that no complaint was filed. As such,
an application was given by the brother of the injured but it
tells a different story. Thus, victim going to the Doctor with
police yadi 5 to 6 days after the incident and Doctor finding
injury to be so remote, it cannot be connected with the
history given by him to the Doctor that on 26.10.2004
accused no.1 gave him fist blow. Considering his own
deposition before the Court, accused no.1 had gone to the
field of Mayabhai Bharwad and he started giving him kick
and fist blow and despite that he continued his work with the
injury in the field till evening. According to him, after going
home, he had informed his mother as also his brother and
his brother informed that accused no.1 kidnapped and took
him to the bushes of babool tree where accused nos. 2 and 3
were standing there with dhariya and stick respectively, and
therefore, he jumped from the motorcycle and ran into the
bushes. However, accused insulted about his caste by
running towards him uttering the insulting words but they
could not chase.
[5.2] Though, the first informant - Ravjibhai brother of
injured Bhupatbhai received information from the injured
about the assault on him and he informed that the incident
has occurred, he has a different story to tell about the
assault on the injured. In his deposition before the Court, he
is not stating anything about any assault on the victim
Bhupatbhai whereas his complaint Exh.12 reflects the same.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1604/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/06/2025
undefined
However, injured Bhupatbhai in his cross examination had
admitted that when he was assaulted in the field there were
nearly 10 labourers working. However, no witnesses have
supported the case of the victim, as claimed in his
deposition. On the contrary, after the incident in respect
thereof, he claimed that he was not even questioned by the
Police.
[5.3] Over and above that, an application, Exh.13 given
by the first informant on that very day, as claimed by him
reflects, different story. As reflected from the application,
Exh.13 addressed to the Police Inspector, Umrala Police
Station, accused have been termed as head strong persons
of the village. They all together in concert assaulted his
brother - Bhupatbhai Kanjibhai while he was working in the
field of Mayabhai Bharwad armed with stick, axe and pipe
and he received blunt injuries. The said application, though
given on 26.10.2004, it again reflects that he, his brother
and family have been administered threat at their residence
uttering abusive words insulting their caste if they do not
come for labour work in his field and they would be burnt
alive. If all the three accused, armed with stick, axe and
pipe, which is not the weapons even assigned to the
accused by even first informant in his complaint, it is said
that they assaulted his brother with those arms and despite
that, Bhupatbhai received only injury, that too of a swelling
with bruise with tenderness on left lower chest, which is
even possible by a fall. Not only that, Doctor found it to be
an old injury where he mentions about an injury to be
remote. In view of the fact that though the application,
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1604/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/06/2025
undefined
Exh.13 given by first informant prior to registration of
offence reflects administering threat to entire family of dire
consequences insulting their caste, when they say that on
the next day, accused had come to their house
administering threat to withdraw the complaint made a day
earlier, however, the fact that on the day of incident i.e.
26.10.2004 they were insulted of their caste while coming to
their house threatening them to come for labour work in the
field or else they would be burnt alive is not finding place in
the complaint though it is filed after four days to the
incident.
[5.4] Therefore, the incident narrated in an application
Exh.13, complaint Exh.10 and deposition of the victim as
also complainant all have different stories to tell. Though
filing of a complaint late by four days or five days is not that
much important when there appears false assertion in an
application claimed to be given by the first informant on the
date of the incident, which has not occurred and which is not
finding place in the FIR. It appears that the first informant
and the victim, his brother, have no respect or regard for the
truth.
[5.5] Though first informant has come out with a story
of he being abducted on a motorbike by accused no.1, that
very part is missing in his first application on the same day
i.e. 26.1.2004 Exh.13, and therefore, it appears to be
nothing but an improvement. Not only that, even as
admitted by him in his cross examination, no accused
though had motorbike attempted to chase him with it when
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1604/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/06/2025
undefined
he ran in the bushes. Not only that, there was even no
injury on his person and he had not taken any treatment
from any Doctor. If he runs into the bushes of babool tree,
he must have at least some bruises all over the body, which
is missing even in his claim not only before the Court but
even in the complaint. Therefore, his assertion with regard
to accused nos.2 and 3 armed with dhariya and stick
respectively falls to the ground. If his that claim is to be
believed, they have already gone with axe, stick and pipe at
that very time to the field of Mayabhai as disclosed in
application, Exh.13, which can never be reconciled. The
incident of uttering words insulting the caste of the first
informant and victim is not even finding place in the FIR,
which is filed after four days, whereas very same utterances
claimed by the first informant to have been uttered by the
accused at a different place whether it is within public view
or not or any public has viewed it or not in such assertion is
not inspiring any confidence, to be believed. So without
entering into that arena whether it was within public view or
public viewed it or not, pales into insignificance. The fact
remains that at each different stages, first informant is lying
and improving upon his case, which suits him, and therefore,
no reliance can be placed as their deposition is not
consistent with their own version given to the Police at
different times. Added to it, the late filing of the complaint.
Despite the so called wait for the amicable resolution of the
dispute, as admitted by the first informant himself in his
deposition even after that the complaint is filed, accused
and the victim are staying in that very village and they face
each other in the village and despite that no incident has
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1604/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/06/2025
undefined
occurred or repeated thereafter. That shows that the so
called incident is nothing but creation of a fruitful mind of
the first informant. Though he is alleged to have been
kidnapped on the motorbike and they passed through the
village itself while going towards bushes of babool tree, he
had not attempted to seek help of anyone by shouting nor
he jumped from the motorbike like he jumped when he saw
accused nod.2 to 4 armed with dhariya, stick respectively at
the sim of village.
[5.6] The learned Judge while passing the judgment
and order of acquittal, assigned good reasons supported by
the evidence on record, which are not possible to be
dislodged. On reappreciation of evidence, as aforesaid, I
also do not find any reliable depositions of the witnesses
because even three of the eye witnesses have not supported
the case of the victim or his brother first informant in whose
presence so called incident occurred, and therefore, there is
no option, as Appeal is without any merit but to dismiss the
same. Hence, this Appeal is dismissed. Record and
Proceedings, if any, received, be sent back to the trial Court
forthwith.
(UMESH A. TRIVEDI, J.)
siji
