Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Bharatbhai Hemabhai Patel on 6 October, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/7/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/10/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 7 of 2013
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE S.V. PINTO Sd/-
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
No
==========================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
BHARATBHAI HEMABHAI PATEL & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS. CHETNA SHAH, APP for the Appellant(s) No. 1
BAILABLE WARRANT SERVED for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 2
MR ANKIT Y BACHANI(5424) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1,3,4,5
MR.JAY S SHAH(7244) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 2
NOTICE UNSERVED for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 6
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE S.V. PINTO
Date : 06/10/2025
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 judgment
and order of acquittal passed by learned Special Judge, Patan (hereinafter
referred to as "the learned Trial Court") in Special (Atrocity) Case No. 19
of 2012 on 25-09-2012, whereby, the learned Trial Court has acquitted
the respondents for the offence punishable under Sections 143, 447, 146,
506(2) and 114 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereafter referred to as
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/7/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/10/2025
undefined
"IPC" for short) and Section 3(1)(4) (5)(10) of the Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter
referred to as "Atrocities 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.
1.2 By an order of this Court dated 13-04-2023, the original
complainant was joined as a party to the proceeding and a notice was
issued through the concerned police station. As per the report of the
learned Additional Session Judge, Patan, while serving the notice to the
complainant by the Patan City "A" Division Police Station, it was found
that the complainant was not present at that time but they found his
mother - Kesarben Kanaiyalal Bhil and her statement has been recorded
wherein, she has stated that her son had gone to attend a wedding and was
not present but she would intimate him about the pendency of the
proceedings before this Court. The statement of Hardikkumar
Laxmanbhai Prajapati, a neighbour of the complainant has also been
recorded and he too has stated that the complainant has gone for a
wedding and he would inform him about the pendency of the proceedings
before the High Court. The statements have been sent along with the
report of ASI, Patan City "A" Division Police Station through the learned
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/7/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/10/2025
undefined
Additional Session Judge, Patan and even though the respondent No. 5 -
Original Complainant has been duly served and the pendency of the
proceedings before this Court is well within his knowledge, he has not
appeared either in person or through an advocate to make any
submissions
2. The brief facts that emerge from the record of the case are as
under:-
2.1 The complainant - Mukeshkumar Kanaiyalal Bhil, a resident of
Patan, was the owner of Survey No. 868/1 Paiki 2, situated in Patan and
on 5-11-2011 at around 9.30 am, the accused illegally trespassed into the
land and when the complainant asked them why they had entered into the
land, they told him that the land was purchased by Bharatbhai Gandabhai
Rawal and threatened to break his hands and legs. The complainant went
away and thereafter once again at 17.00 Hrs. when the complainant went
to the land, the accused No. 2 told him that he had purchased the land and
threatened to kill him and all the accused tried to assault him. Witness
Vipulkumar Dalpatram Thakkar intervened and as the accused had
formed an unlawful assembly and hurled caste-slurs against the
complainant and threatened to kill him, the complainant - Mukeshkumar
Kanaiyalal Bhil filed a complaint at the Patan City "A" Division Police
Station under Sections 143, 447, 146 and 506(2) of the IPC and Section 3
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/7/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/10/2025
undefined
(1)(10) of the Atrocity Act, which came to be registered as Patan City
"A" Division Police Station I -C.R.No.128 of 2007.
2.2 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 necessary papers were provided to the accused as per the
provisions of Section 207 of the Code. A charge at Exh.4 was framed
against the accused and the statements of the accused were recorded at
Exhs. 5 to 8 respectively, wherein, the accused denied all the contents of
the charge and the entire evidence of the prosecution was taken on record.
2.3 The prosecution produced oral and documentary evidences to bring
home charge against the accused and after the learned Additional Public
Prosecutor filed the closing pursis, the further statement of the accused
under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 were
recorded, wherein, the accused denied all the evidence of the prosecution
on record, but produced the record of Criminal Case No. 36 of 2012. The
accused refused to step into the witness box or examine witnesses on their
behalf and state, that a false case has been filed against them. 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 all the accused from
all the charges leveled against them.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/7/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/10/2025
undefined
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 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
judgment 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
quashed and set aside.
4. Heard learned APP Ms. Chetna Shah for the appellant State,
learned and advocate Mr Ankit Y. Bachani for the respondent Nos. 1, 3 to
5 and learned advocate Mr. Jay Shah for the respondent No. 2. Though
served, the respondent No. 6 did not appear either in person or through an
advocate. Perused the impugned judgement and order of acquittal and
have re-appreciated the entire evidence of the prosecution on record of
the case.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/7/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/10/2025
undefined
5. Learned APP Ms. Chetna Shah for the appellant-State has taken
this Court through the entire evidence of the prosecution on record of the
case and has 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. The complainant
has supported the case of the prosecution 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. That 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.
6. Learned advocate learned advocate Mr. Ankti Y Bachani for the
respondent Nos. 1, 3 to 5 and learned advocate Mr. Jay S Shah for the
respondent No. 2 have jointly submitted that the judgment and order has
been passed after due appreciation of all the evidence and the learned
Court has appreciated the evidence in proper perspective and hence, the
appeal of the appellant-State must be rejected.
7. 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 the
case of Chandrappa & Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka reported in 2007 (4)
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/7/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/10/2025
undefined
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 iTimes New Romann 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
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/7/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/10/2025
undefined
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.
8. The law with regard to acquittal appeals is well crystallized and in
acquittal appeals, there is a 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.
9. In light on the above settled principles of law and considering the
evidence on the prosecution, to bring home the charge against the
accused, Prosecution Witness No.1 Mukeshkumar Kanaiyalal Bhil has
been examined examined at Exhibit 17 is the complainant, who has
supported the contents of the complaint, which is produced at Exhibit 18.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/7/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/10/2025
undefined
During the cross-examination by the learned advocate for the
accused, the witness has stated that, in the complaint produced at Exhibit
18, which is filed on 20-11-2011, there is no mention about the date and
time of the incident. The complainant has also admitted that the accused
No. 2 had entered into an agreement to purchase Survey No. 868 / paiki 1
/ paiki 2 with his family members.
9.1 Prosecution Witness No.2 Desai Gehmerbhai Hirabhai examined at
Exhibit 19 is the PSO who has registered the complaint.
9.2 Prosecution Witness No.3 Vipulkumar Dalpatram Thakkar
examined at Exhibit 23 is an eyewitness to the incident as per the case of
the prosecution. The witness has stated that the incident has occurred on
5-11-2011 and the complainant came to him and asked him to accompany
him to his field. They went between 09:00 am and 9.30 am to the field
and they saw the accused sitting in the field. The complainant asked them
why they were sitting in the field and he was informed that the land was
purchased by Bharatbhai Gandabhai Rawal and it belonged to him and
they told him to come in the evening when the owner would come. In the
evening once-again they went to the field and at that time all the five
accused were present and they ran to assault them. They hurled caste-
slurs, abused them and threatened to kill them. Both of them returned
home and thereafter the complainant filed the complaint. In the cross
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/7/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/10/2025
undefined
examination, the witness has stated, in his statement, before the police,
that he has not stated that the incident has occurred on 5-11-2011 and he
had earlier signed the panchnama in a case filed between the parties. He
is a friend of the complainant Mukeshbhai and he and his brother are land
agents.
9.3 Prosecution Witness No.4 Arvindbhai Ishwarbhai Patel examined
at Exhibit 24 was working as the Deputy Mamlatdar in the Mamlatdar
Office of the Executive Magistrate and he has produced the caste
certificate of the complainant at Exhibit 25.
9.4 Prosecution Witness No.5 Mahendrasinh Jalamsinh Parmar
examined at Exhibit 26 is the Investigating Officer, who has narrated the
procedure undertaken by him during investigation.
9.5 Prosecution Witness No.6 Omkarnath Shivbahadur Tiwari
examined at Exhibit 28 is the PSI, who has recorded the complaint of the
complainant.
9.6 Prosecution Witness No.7 Kishoresinh Gagubha Vaghela examined
at Exhibit 32 is the Investigating Officer, who has narrated the entire
procedure undertaken by him during investigation. In the cross
examination, the witness has stated that he had received the application
dated 6-11-2011 along with the FIR and, in the complaint, the
complainant had named only one person and seven others and he had
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/7/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/10/2025
undefined
stated that he could recognize them. In the application, it was stated that
on 5-11-2011 at around 9 am, seven persons were present and, in the
complaint, it was not mentioned that the accused had hurled any caste-
slurs against them. The application is produced on record at Exhibit 34.
10. On minute appreciation of the entire evidence of the prosecution,
as per the case of the complainant, the incident has occurred on 5-11-
2011 and an application was given by the complainant to file a complaint
against the accused No. 2 and seven others, wherein, the incident is
alleged to have occurred on 5-11-2011 at 09:00 am. The application has
been given on 6-11- 2011, and, thereafter, the complaint has been filed on
20-11-2011, wherein, the complainant has named all the accused and has
stated that in the morning four persons were present and in the evening
five persons were present. Moreover, the caste-slurs alleged to have been
uttered by the accused are different in the complaint, and, in the
application, and there is no evidence on record as to how the complainant
could identify the all the accused. In the evidence on record, it has
emerged that there was an agreement to sell the land executed by the
family members of the complainant, which was not liked by the
complainant and the complainant has not specifically narrated as to who
had uttered what words. The initial application, which is given at Exhibit
34 by the complainant on 6-11-2011 does not mention that any caste-slurs
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/7/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/10/2025
undefined
were used by the accused at the time of the incident. The independent
witness Prosecution Witness No. 3 Vipulkumar stated Talpatram Thakkar
stated that he was a friend of the complainant and was interested in the
land, as he has admitted that, he was an agent of land and there is no iota
of evidence that the accused were present at the spot and they had hurled
any caste-slurs against the complainant. Even otherwise, the incident, as
per the say of the complainant, has occurred at a place, which is not in
public view, and hence the ingredients of the Atrocity act are not
attracted.
11. In view of the settled position of law in 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 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
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/7/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/10/2025
undefined
and the present appeal is devoid of merits and resultantly, the same is
dismissed.
12. The impugned judgment and order of acquittal passed by learned
Special Judge, Patan in Special (Atrocity) Case No. 19 of 2012 on 25-09-
2012, is hereby confirmed.
13. Bail bond stands cancelled. Record and proceedings be sent back to
the concerned Trial Court forthwith.
Sd/-
(S. V. PINTO,J)
VVM
