Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Mansinhbhai Ramabhai Chaudhary on 6 October, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1557/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/10/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1557 of 2012
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE S.V. PINTO Sd/-
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting No
==========================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
MANSINHBHAI RAMABHAI CHAUDHARY & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS. C.M. SHAH, APP for the Appellant(s) No. 1
BAILABLE WARRANT SERVED for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1,2
NOTICE SERVED for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 3
RULE SERVED for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1,2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE S.V. PINTO
Date : 06/10/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. The appeal is filed by the appellant State under
Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against
the judgement and order of acquittal passed by the learned
Special Judge, Patan (hereinafter referred to as "the learned
Trial Court") in Special Case (Atro) No. 31/2011 on
30.06.2012 whereby, the learned Trial Court has acquitted
the respondents for the offence punishable under Section
506(2) read with Section 114 of Indian Penal Code, 1860
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1557/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/10/2025
undefined
and Sections 3(1)(10) of Schedule Caste and Schedule
Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter
referred to as "the Atrocity 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 - Harshadbhai Aalabhai Chamar was
running a ration shop in Odhav village in Patan, Taluka &
District Patan and on 21.03.2011, at around 07.00 pm, he
and his son Anilkumar closed the ration shop and were
going towards the house of his younger brother. When they
reached near Ramapeer Temple, they met Chenaji Ravjiji
Thakor and they were standing and talking to him and at
that time, the accused no. 1 came and asked him why he
was not giving him kerosene. The complainant told him that
as he was having a gas connection, he was not eligible for
kerosene but he was taking sugar and wheat and the
accused no. 1 started abusing the complainant and hurled
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1557/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/10/2025
undefined
derogatory caste slurs against him. The accused no. 1 came
and he too hurled caste slurs against the complainant and
threatened that the ration shop would be closed. His son
Anil and Thakor Chenaji Ravjiji intervened and separated
them and they went towards their house. The complainant -
Harshadbhai Aalabhai Chamar filed a complaint at Patan
Taluka Police Station under Sections 504 and 114 of the
Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 3(1)(10) of the Atrocity
Act which came to be registered at Patan Taluka Police
Station II - C.R. No. 30 of 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-
sheet came to be filed before the Court of the Judicial
Magistrate First Class, Patan and as the said offences
against the accused were exclusively triable by the Court of
Sessions, the case was committed to the Sessions Court,
Patan as per the provisions of Section 209 of Code of
Criminal Procedure and the case was registered as Special
Case (Atro) No. 31/2011.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1557/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/10/2025
undefined
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. 10 was framed against the
accused and the statements of the accused was recorded at
Exhs. 11 and 12 respectively, 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 6
documentary evidences on record in support of their case
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 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
judgement and order was pleased to acquit all the accused
from the charges levelled against them.
3. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1557/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/10/2025
undefined
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 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 the law and the
reasons stated while acquitting the respondent 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. C.M. Shah for the appellant
State. Though bailable warrants have been served, the
respondent nos. 1 and 2 have not appeared either in person
or through an advocate. Perused the impugned judgement
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1557/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/10/2025
undefined
and order of acquittal and have reappreciated the entire
evidence of the prosecution on record of the case.
5. Learned APP Ms. C.M. Shah 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.
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
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1557/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/10/2025
undefined
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".
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
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1557/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/10/2025
undefined
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
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
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1557/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/10/2025
undefined
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.
8. To prove the offence against the accused, the
prosecution has in all examined six witnesses. PW1 -
Chamar Harshadbhai Aalabhai examined at Exh. 18 is the
complainant who has supported the facts of the complaint
which is produced at Exh. 19. The witness has also
produced his caste certificate at Exh. 20. In the cross-
examination, the witness has admitted that the road to go
to the Harijanwas and the road to go to Ramapeer Temple
are located away from the village and far from each other.
The complainant has admitted that the accused had filed
an application against him and he had to give surety in the
police.
8.1 PW2 - Chamar Anilkumar Harshadbhai examined at
Exh. 21 is the son of the complainant and an eyewitness to
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1557/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/10/2025
undefined
the incident and he has supported the case of the
prosecution. In the cross-examination, the witness has
stated that the place of incident is a public road and is
teeming with people who go to the field and return and
person of all caste pass through that road.
8.2 PW3 - Thakor Chenaji Ravji examined at Exh. 22 is
the eyewitness to the incident and has supported the case
of the prosecution. In the cross-examination, the witness
has stated that he has good relations with the complainant
as he has a ration shop and the place near Ramapeer
Temple is a place where a number of people pass by.
8.3 PW4 - Parmar Amratbhai Kamshibhai examined at
Exh. 23 is the panch witness of the panchnama of the place
of offence which is produced at Exh. 24. The witness has
supported the case of the prosecution.
8.4 PW5 - Vaghri Babubhai Sampatbhai examined at Exh.
25 is the PSO who has registered the complaint. The
witness has produced the depute order at Exh. 26, wireless
message at Exh. 27 and an order of the Superintendent of
Police at Exh. 28. In the cross-examination, the witness has
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1557/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/10/2025
undefined
stated that the complainant had come to the Police Station
on 23.03.2011 at 12.20 hours and he had taken down the
complaint of the complainant as per the say of the
complainant. His son Anil had accompanied him to the
Police Station and they both sat together while the
complaint was being recorded.
8.5 PW6 - K.G. Vaghela examined at Exh. 29 is the
Investigating Officer who has narrated the procedure
undertaken by him during investigation.
9. On minute appreciation of the entire evidence of the
prosecution, it is on record that the accused had filed an
application about irregularities by the complainant in
running the ration shop for which a police inquiry had
taken place and the complainant had to give surety. If the
record is perused, the incident as stated by the
complainant has occurred on 21.03.2011 but the complaint
has been filed on 23.03.2011. If the panchnama of the
place of incident is produced, it is the road where there is a
tree and about 50 feet away from the shop of the
complainant. The Ramapeer Temple is at a distance of
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1557/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/10/2025
undefined
about 10 feet away, about 20 feet away is the pan stall of
Babubhai Ratnabai Parmar and on the north is the field of
Ranchhodbhai Dajabai Chaudhary. Admittedly, the place is
used by people of different castes and at the time of the
incident there were other people but no independent
witnesses have been examined before the learned Trial
Court. The witnesses that have been examined are the son
and friend of the complainant and their evidence has to be
minutely appreciated but there does not appear to be any
evidence regarding the presence of the accused at the time
of the incident at the place as stated by the complainant.
Moreover, the caste certificate of the complainant has been
produced on record at Exh. 20 but no investigation in this
regard has been done by the Investigating Officer and there
is no cogent and convincing evidence that the complainant
was a member of the Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe
and at the time of the incident the accused did meet the
complainant and derogatory hurled caste slurs against him
and threatened him.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1557/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/10/2025
undefined
10. In view of the settled position of law, 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 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, Patan in Special Case
(Atro) No. 31/2011 on 30.06.2012 is hereby confirmed.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1557/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/10/2025
undefined
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
