Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Kesharbhai Raghjibhai Patel on 7 October, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/763/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/10/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 763 of 2013
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE S.V. PINTO Sd/-
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
No
==========================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
KESHARBHAI RAGHJIBHAI PATEL & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR. PRANAV DHAGAT, APP for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR D A CHAUDHARI(3264) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1
RULE SERVED for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1,2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE S.V. PINTO
Date : 07/10/2025
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, Palanpur
(hereinafter referred to as "the learned Trial Court") in Special (Atrocity)
Case No. 49 of 2011 on 30-06-2012, whereby, the learned Trial Court
has acquitted the respondent for the offence punishable under Sections
323, 509, 504 and 506(2) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereafter
referred to as "IPC" for short) and Section 3(1)(11) of the Scheduled
Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989
(hereinafter referred to as "Atrocities Act") .
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/763/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/10/2025
undefined
1.1 The respondent is hereinafter referred to as the accused as he 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 On 29-07-2011, at around 9 a.m., the complainant - Meenaben
wife of Mohanbhai Becharbhai Senma was returning home, after
answering nature's call at village Edrana, Taluka: Vadgam and she met
the accused on the road and he winked at her. The complainant -
Meenaben told him to go away and he took his motorcycle and went
away. She went home and while she was going to purchase a soap at the
shop of Bhalabhai Malabhai Brahman, near the main gate of the village,
once again the accused met her, abused her and hurled caste-slurs against
her and tried to hold her hand and at that time, the complainant -
Meenaben shouted at him and he went away. Her husband - Mohanbhai
Becharbhai Senma and brother-in-law - Sureshbhai Veerabhai were at
the field and someone telephoned her brother-in-law - Sureshbhai
Veerabhai that the accused was harassing her and her husband came to
know about the incident. In the afternoon, her brother-in-law -
Sureshbhai was going for a shave, at the barber's shop and the
complainant assaulted him and Chaturbhai Vaghari intervened and saved
him. The complainant filed the complaint at the Chhapi Police Station
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/763/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/10/2025
undefined
under Section 509, 504, 506(2) 323 of the IPC and Section 3(1)(10) of the
Atrocity Act, which came to be registered at Chhapi Police Station II -
C.R.No. 3031 of 2011.
2.2 The accused was 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.5 was framed
against the accused and the statement of the accused was recorded at Exh.
6, 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 the 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 was
recorded, wherein, the accused denied all the evidence of the prosecution
on record. The accused refused to step into the witness box or examine
witnesses on his behalf and stated that a false case has been filed against
him. 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 him.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/763/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/10/2025
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 respondent. The case
has been proved beyond reasonable doubts and the prosecution has
successfully established the case against the respondent 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 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,
learned advocate Mr. D.A.Chaudhary for the respondent No.1. Though
served, the respondent No. 2 did not appear either in person or through an
advocate. Perused the impugned judgment and order of acquittal and have
re-appreciated the entire evidence of the prosecution on record of the
case.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/763/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/10/2025
undefined
5. Learned APP Mr. Pranav Dhagat 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 Mr. D.A.Chaudhary for the respondent has relied
upon the decision of this High Court in the case of State of Gujarat Vs.
Balvansinh Jesangbhai Chavda, reported in 2025(0)AIJEL-JC-250240
and submits that the judgment and order has been passed after
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
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/763/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/10/2025
undefined
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 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, re-appreciate 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
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.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/763/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/10/2025
undefined
(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 on record, to bring home the charge against
the accused, the prosecution has examined Prosecution Witness No.1 Dr.
Anilkumar Ratnaji Baranda at Exhibit 8 and the witness is the Medical
Officer of Community Health Centre (CHC), Vadgam, who was on duty
on 31-07- 2011 at around 3.30 pm, when Sureshbhai Veerabhai Senma, a
resident of village Edrana, Taluka Vadgam, District Banaskantha had
come for treatment with a Yadi of Chhapi Police Station. As per the
history, he was assaulted on 29-07-2011, at around 10.00 Hrs. by
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/763/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/10/2025
undefined
Kesharhai Rajjibhai Patel at the Edrana bus stand and he was beaten with
fists and was injured. The patient was conscious, cooperative and well-
oriented to time and place and person, and, on examination, he had a
healing abrasion 0.5 cm x 0.3 cm in size, on left side of neck, which was
reddish with a brown scab and there was mild tenderness on the left
middle back region. The injury was likely to be caused by a hard and
blunt substance and would take about 3-5 days to recover. The age of
injury was about 2-3 days old. The witness has produced the medical
certificate of Sureshbhai Veerabhai Senma at Exhibit 10. In the cross-
examination, the witness has admitted that Edrana village is near Chhapi
and there is a Primary Health Centre at Chhapi. A fresh injury would be
reddish and, as per the say of the patient, the injury was caused 2 days
ago. A pain would be natural or by a fall and if a blow with a fist is given,
no abrasion would occur. The injury sustained by the patient could be
sustained, if a person falls on the ground but could not be sustained by
fists.
9.1 Prosecution Witness No. 2 Meenaben Mohanbhai Senma examined
at Exhibit 12 is the complainant who has supported the contents of the
complaint, which is produced at Exhibit 22. The witness has also
identified his caste-certificate which is produced at Exhibit 29. The
complainant has stated that when her brother-in-law was assaulted by the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/763/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/10/2025
undefined
accused - Chaturbhai Waghri and Bikhabhai Nai had intervened and
saved her brother-in-law. In the cross-examination, the witness has stated
that the name of her father is Mafatlal and he is residing in Mehsana
District and not in Banaskantha District. Her caste certificate has to be
got from Mehsana District and the caste certificate produced at Exhibit 29
is the caste certificate of Banaskantha District. The witness has stated that
her husband's certificate has been lost and she covers her face when she
moves about in the village. She did not have any quarrel with the accused
earlier and the place, where, the incident occurred is a public road
teeming with people. She does not have any relationship with the accused
and the incident on 29-07-2011, which occurred at 09:00 am, had
occurred while she was alone. She told her brother-in-law - Sureshbhai
Veerabhai about the incident and at the time of the incident a number of
persons had gathered.
9.2 Prosecution Witness No.3 - Sureshbhai Veerabhai Senma
examined at Exhibit 13 is the brother-in-law and injured witness and he
has supported the case of the prosecution. In the cross-examination, the
witness has stated that there is a pan cabin next to the barber shop and is a
public place and at the time of the incident many persons had gathered.
He had gone to Patan at 01:00 pm and on 31 st he went to Patan and
Chhapi Police Station.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/763/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/10/2025
undefined
9.3 Prosecution Witness No.4 - Mohanbhai Becharbhai Parmar
examined at Exhibit 15 is the husband of the complainant and is a hearsay
witness. In the cross-examination, he has admitted that he did not witness
any of the incident but came to know about it from his wife.
9.4 Prosecution Witness No.5 - Chaturbhai Chelabhai Kankodiya
examined at Exhibit 16 and Prosecution Witness No. 6 Bhikhabhai
Ishwarbhai Nai examined at Exhibit 17 are the eye-witnesses as per the
case of the prosecution but both the witnesses have not supported the case
of the complainant prosecution and have stated that, no such quarrel had
taken place in their presence and they did not intervene and save any
person. Both the witnesses have been declared hostile and have been
cross-examined at length by the learned APP but nothing to support the
case of the prosecution has come on record.
9.5 Prosecution Witness No.7 Mohanbhai Lembabhai Parmar
examined at Exhibit 21 is the PSI who has recorded the complaint of the
complainant which is produced at Exhibit 22.
9.6 Prosecution Witness No.8 Parthiji Hariji examined at Exhibit 24 is
the PSO, who has registered the complaint.
9.7 Prosecution Witness No.9 Neerajkumar Goopchand Badgujar
examined at Exhibit 28 is the Investigating Officer, who has narrated in
detail the procedure undertaken by him during investigation. In the cross-
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/763/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/10/2025
undefined
examination, the witness has stated that he did not visit the field where
the husband of the complainant was working and has produced the caste
certificate of the complainant at Exhibit 29.
10. On minute appreciation of the entire evidence of the prosecution,
the incident has occurred in three parts on 29-07-2011 at 9 am when the
accused is alleged to have winked at the complainant and at that time the
complainant was alone. The second incident occurred when the
complainant was going to buy soap at the shop of Bhalabhai Malabhai
Brahman and the accused met her on the road and at that time, the
incident had occurred on the public road but there are no independent
witnesses about this incident. The third incident has occurred when the
brother-in-law of the complainant Sureshbhai Veerabhai was going to the
barber shop and the accused met him and assaulted him with fists and at
that time, as per the case of the complainant, Prosecution Witness No. 5
Chaturbhai Chelabhai Kankodiya and Prosecution Witness No. 6
Bhikhabhai Ishwarbhai Nai intervened and saved him. The complaint has
been filed on 30-07-2011 by the complainant and there is no explanation
regarding the delay in filing of the complaint. If the complaint is perused,
there are no derogatory caste abusive words spoken by the accused in
public view and the two witnesses Prosecution Witness No. 5 Chaturbhai
Chelabhai Kankodiya and Prosecution Witness No. 6 Bhikhabhai
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/763/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/10/2025
undefined
Ishwarbhai Nai, who, as per the case of the complainant had intervened
and saved her brother-in-law, have both turned hostile and have
categorically stated that no quarrel had taken place in their presence and
they did not intervene to save anyone. As per the complainant and
Prosecution Witness No. 3 Sureshbhai Veerabhai Senma the accused
assaulted him with fists and he had taken treatment at the Community
Health Center, Vadgam but if the medical certificate produced at Exhibit
10 is perused, there was an abrasion, which had a reddish brown scab and
the injured witness had gone for treatment on 31-07-2011 at 3.30pm. The
incident has occurred on 29-07-2011, for which, the injured had gone for
treatment on 31-07-2011 and the medical officer has opined that no
abrasion could be caused by a fist. The injury could be sustained by a fall
and the say of the injured witness is not supported by any medical
evidence. Moreover, it has also come on record that there is a Primary
Health Center at Chhapi but the injured witness has gone to the
Community Health Center at Vadgam. As per the say of the complainant,
many people had gathered at the time of the incident but no independent
persons have been examined to prove that the incident had, in fact, taken
place. As discussed earlier, two independent witnesses Prosecution
Witness No. 5 Chaturbhai Chelabhai Kankodiya and Prosecution Witness
No. 6 Bhikhabhai Ishwarbhai Nai have both turned hostile and not
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/763/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/10/2025
undefined
supported the case of the prosecution and even though many people had
gathered. There is no evidence on record to prove beyond reasonable
doubt that the incident has occurred. There are major contradictions in the
deposition of the complainant, her husband and brother-in-law and it is
not clear as to who informed whom about the incident. If the entire
evidence is perused, even the caste certificate of the complainant, which
is produced at Exhibit 29 is produced from the Social Welfare Office
Banaskantha at Palanpur but the complainant has stated that her father is
of Mahesana District and her caste certificate has to be produced from
Mahesana District. There is no investigation into the caste certificate but
the certificate has simply been produced on record by the Investigating
Officer and if the entire evidence is perused, there is no evidence that any
derogatory caste slurs were used by the accused or that the accused had,
in fact, met the complainant and her brother-in-law Sureshbhai Veerabhai
at the time of the incident.
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
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/763/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/10/2025
undefined
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 judgment and order of acquittal passed by learned
Special Judge, Palanpur in Special (Atrocity) Case No. 49 of 2011 on
30-06-2012, 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
