Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Chhatrasing Juthji Devda on 7 October, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/206/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/10/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL (AGAINST ACQUITTAL) NO. 206 of 2015
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE S.V. PINTO Sd/-
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting No
==========================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
CHHATRASING JUTHJI DEVDA & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR. PRANAV DHAGAT, APP for the Appellant(s) No. 1
ARCHANABEN B GOSWAMI(8154) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1
BAILABLE WARRANT SERVED for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No.
1,2,3,4
MR MAHENDRA U VORA(3034) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1
RULE SERVED for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 2,3,4
UNSERVED EXPIRED (R) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 5
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE S.V. PINTO
Date : 07/10/2025
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
Additional Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Deesa
(hereinafter referred to as "the learned Trial Court") in
Special Case (Atro) No. 53/2011 on 18.11.2014 whereby,
the learned Trial Court has acquitted the respondents for
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/206/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/10/2025
undefined
the offence punishable under Sections 504, 506(2) and 114
of Indian Penal Code, 1860 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 - Govabhai Somabhai Makwana and
the accused nos. 1 and 2 had agricultural lands in the
outskirts of Nainava village, Taluka Dhanera and on
05.04.2011 at around 16.00 hours, while the complainant
and witnesses Ramchandra Govabhai Majirana, Kishnabhai
Govabhai Majirana and Gagiben wife of Govabhai Majirana
were working in their fields, the accused came to the field of
the complainant and abused him and hurled derogatory
caste slurs against him. A dispute with regard to the fields
was going on between the parties as there was a common
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/206/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/10/2025
undefined
boundary between the lands and as the accused had hurled
derogatory caste slurs against the complainant, the
complainant filed a complaint at the Dhanera Police Station
under Sections 504, 506(2) and 114 of the Indian Penal
Code, 1860 and Section 3(1)(10) of the Atrocity Act which
came to be registered at Dhanera Police Station II - C.R. No.
3035 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, Dhanera and as the said offences
against the accused were exclusively triable by the Court of
Sessions, the case was committed to the Sessions Court,
Deesa as per the provisions of Section 209 of Code of
Criminal Procedure and the case was registered as Special
Case (Atro) No. 53/2011.
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
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/206/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/10/2025
undefined
provided to the accused as per the provisions of Section 207
of the Code. A charge at Exh. 7 was framed against the
accused and the statements of the accused was recorded at
Exhs. 8, 9, 10 and 11 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 10 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
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
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/206/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/10/2025
undefined
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 Mr. Pranav Dhagat for the
appellant State and learned advocate Mr. M.U. Vora for the
respondent no. 1. 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
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/206/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/10/2025
undefined
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. Learned advocate Mr. M.U. Vora for the respondent
no. 1 has submitted that the learned Trial Court has
appreciated the evidence and passed the impugned
judgement and order and no interference is required hence,
the appeal may 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 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:
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/206/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/10/2025
undefined
"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".
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',
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/206/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/10/2025
undefined
'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
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 presumption
of innocence in favour of the accused and it has finally
culminated when a case ends in an acquittal. The learned
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/206/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/10/2025
undefined
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. To prove the offence against the accused, the
prosecution has in all examined ten witnesses. PW1 -
Govabhai Somabhai Makwana examined at Exh. 15 is the
complainant who has supported the contents of the
complaint which is produced at Exh. 16. In the cross
examination, the complainant has stated that there is a
hedge between his field and the field of the accused and
Regular Civil Suit No. 30 of 2008 is pending before the Civil
Court, Dhanera. The complainant sought for a temporary
injunction in the matter but it was refused by the learned
Trial Court. Survey No. 179 paiki 5 acres and 5 Gunthas
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/206/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/10/2025
undefined
land was sold to Babulal Misrimal by a registered sale deed
and a dispute regarding the land was going on between
Sanghvi Babulal and the accused. Regular Civil Suit No. 30
of 2008 was filed against the accused before the Dhanera
Court and towards the south of his field is the field of
Mangabhai and he resides in that field with his family and
towards the north is the field of Himmatlal Bhagwandas.
9.1 PW2 - Bhurabhai Arjanbhai examined at Exh. 19 is
the panch witness of the panchnama of the place of offence
which is produced at Exh. 20. The witness has supported
the case of the prosecution.
9.2 PW3 - Mohanbhai Madhabhai examined at Exh. 21 is
also the panch witness of the panchnama of the place of
offence. The witness has supported the case of the
prosecution.
9.3 PW4 - Krishnabhai Govabhai examined at Exh. 29 is
an eye witness to the incident and he has supported the
case of the prosecution. The witness has stated that all the
accused came armed with weapons and the accused no. 1
had a sword, the accused no. 2 had a stick, accused no. 3
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/206/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/10/2025
undefined
had a stick and the accused no. 4 had an axe and they
asked them why they had brought an injunction. They told
them that his father knew about the injunction and they
abused him and hurled caste slurs against him and
threatened to kill him. In the cross-examination, the witness
has admitted that there is a thorny fence surrounding the
field and at the time of the incident, there was a thorny
fence between him and the accused. The witness has
admitted that a civil case is pending before the Dhanera
Court and his father had applied for an injunction
application. The witness has also admitted that the accused
did not enter into their field as they left the field and went
away.
9.4 PW5 - Ramchandra Govabhai examined at Exh. 38 is
the son of the complainant and an eye witness to the
incident and in the cross-examination, he has admitted that
his father had filed a Civil Suit and had sought for
injunction. The witness has also admitted that there is a
wire fencing surrounding the field and there is no other
entry to the field. The witness has also admitted that after
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/206/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/10/2025
undefined
the Civil Suit was filed they do not have any relation to talk
with each other and their relations are not good.
9.5 PW6 - Jabbarsinh Sardarsinh examined at Exh. 39
and PW7 - Tanvarsinh Balwantsinh examined at Exh. 41
are the panch witnesses of the arrest panchnama produced
at Exh. 40. The witnesses have not supported the case of
the prosecution and have been declared hostile.
9.6 PW8 - Gagiben Govabhai examined at Exh. 43 is an
eye witness to the incident and wife of the complainant who
has fully supported the case of the prosecution. In the
cross-examination, the witness has admitted that there is a
fence surrounding the field and the way to enter into the
field is on the road. Their hut is in the middle of the field
and the witness has admitted that there is a case pending
before the Dhanera Court and since the case, they do not
have good relations and they do not speak to each other.
9.7 PW9 - Samalbhai Ramjibhai Mali examined at Exh. 45
is an independent eye witness as per the case of the
prosecution but the witness has not supported the case of
the prosecution, and has been declared hostile.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/206/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/10/2025
undefined
9.8 PW10 - Bhimjibhai Sakrabhai Ninama examined at
Exh. 46 is the Investigating Officer who has narrated the
procedure undertaken by him during investigation. During
the cross-examination, the witness has admitted that
during investigation, it was found that civil disputes were
going on between the parties regarding the land before the
Dhanera Court and he had gone to the place of incident. He
did not record the statements of the neighbouring field
owners i.e. Himmatlal or Mangabhai and in the statement of
Krishnabhai Govabhai he did not state that the accused had
hurled derogatory caste slurs and abused them.
Ramchandrabhai Govabhai also did not state that the
accused had hurled derogatory caste slurs and at the place
of incident, there is thorny fence between the fields of the
accused and the field of the complainant. The witness has
also admitted that there is Ninava Outpost and a Police
Chowki on the road. The witness has produced the caste
certificate of the complainant at Exh. 47.
10. On minute appreciation of the entire evidence of the
prosecution, the complainant admittedly is not an
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/206/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/10/2025
undefined
eyewitness to the incident, and no independent witnesses
have supported the case of the prosecution. PW4 -
Krishnabhai Govabhai and PW5 Ramchandrabhai Govabhai
are the sons of the complainant and PW8 - Gagiben
Govabhai is the wife of the complainant who were present
at the time of the incident but there are major
contradictions in their depositions. Admittedly, the incident
as narrated by the complainant has occurred in the field
and it is not in public view and it is also come on record
that one Mangabhai was residing with his family in the field
which was to the southern portion of the field of the
complainant but his evidence has not come on record. It is
also on record that there are civil litigations pending
between the parties and considering the major
contradictions in the depositions of the witnesses, the
prosecution has not proved the case beyond reasonable
doubts.
11. 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
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/206/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/10/2025
undefined
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.
12. The impugned judgement and order of acquittal
passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge and
Special Judge, Deesa in Special Case (Atro) No. 53/2011 on
18.11.2014 is hereby confirmed.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/206/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/10/2025
undefined
13. Bail bond stands cancelled. Record and proceedings
be sent back to the concerned Trial Court forthwith.
Sd/-
(S. V. PINTO,J)
VASIM S. SAIYED
