Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Ilaben D/O Kantibhai Motibhai Rathod on 4 September, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/303/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/09/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 303 of 2013
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE S.V. PINTO
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting No
==========================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
ILABEN D/O KANTIBHAI MOTIBHAI RATHOD & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS. C.M. SHAH, APP for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR PRAVIN GONDALIYA(1974) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1
RULE SERVED for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE S.V. PINTO
Date : 04/09/2025
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, Kheda at Nadiad (hereinafter
referred to as "the learned Trial Court") in Special (Atrocity)
Case No. 71 of 2010 on 08.11.2012, whereby, the learned
Trial Court has acquitted the respondent for the offence
punishable under Sections 506(2) and 294B of Indian Penal
Code, 1860 and Sections 3(1)(10) of Schedule Caste and
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/303/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/09/2025
undefined
Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989
(hereinafter referred to as "the Atrocity Act" for short).
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 The complainant - Jignaben Somajibhai Balad and the
accused were working as teachers in J.H. Sonawala High
School, Mehemdabad since the year 2006. On 23.06.2010,
at around 10.00 hours, the accused abused the
complainant, hurled caste slurs against her and wrote on
the blackboard abusive words against the complainant and
threatened to kill her if she would stay in Mehemdabad and
also told her that she would drive her away from the job.
The complainant filed the complaint at the Mehemdabad
Police Station under Sections 506(2), 294(B) of the Indian
Penal Code, 1860 and Section 3(1)(10) of the Atrocity Act
which came to be registered at Mehemdabad Police Station
II - C.R. No. 296 of 2010.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/303/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/09/2025
undefined
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, Mehemdabad and as the said
offences against the accused were exclusively triable by the
Court of Sessions, the case was committed to the Sessions
Court, Kheda as per the provisions of Section 209 of Code of
Criminal Procedure and the case was registered as Special
(Atrocity) Case No. 71 of 2010.
2.3 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 police papers were
provided to the accused as per the provisions of Section 207
of the Code. A charge at Exh. 2 was framed against the
accused and the statement of the accused was recorded at
Exh. 3 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 12 witnesses and produced
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/303/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/09/2025
undefined
20 documentary evidences on record in support of his 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 and 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 the accused
from the charges levelled against him.
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 the cross-examination, nothing adverse has been
elicited in favor of the respondent. The case has been proved
beyond reasonable doubt and the prosecution has
successfully established the case against the respondent
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/303/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/09/2025
undefined
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 and learned advocate Mr. Rohan Vaghela for learned
advocate Mr. Pravin Gondaliya for the respondent no. 1.
Though served, the respondent no. 2 has not remained
present either in person or through an advocate. 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 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
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/303/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/09/2025
undefined
this Court to quash and set aside the same and find the
respondent guilty for the offences.
6. 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
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.
7. To prove the offence against the accused, the
prosecution has in all examined twelve witnesses. PW1 -
Jignaben Somajibhai Balat examined at Exh. 7 is the
complainant and she has narrated all the facts stated in the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/303/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/09/2025
undefined
complaint which is produced at Exh. 8. During the cross-
examination, the witness has admitted that Gopalbhai
Sharma is her husband and she belongs to the Sharma
Caste. The witness has also admitted that she had filed the
complaint on 28.07.2010 for the incident that has occurred
on 23.06.2010. The witness has produced the caste
certificate at Exh. 10 and her school-leaving certificate at
Exh. 11 and in the document produced at Exh. 11, the
caste with sub-caste is Hindu-Adivasi-Dungri-Garasiya.
7.1 PW2 - Arvindbhai Gedalbhai Vaghela examined at
Exh. 12 is the panch witness of the panchnama of the place
of offence which is produced at Exh. 13. The witness has
supported the case of the prosecution and as per the
panchnama produced at Exh. 13, the place of offence is the
classroom of Class 12A of Sheth J. H. Sonawala High
School of Mehemdabad.
7.2 PW3 - Kishanlal Ramdas Chavda examined at Exh. 16
is a teacher working in Sheth J. H. Sonawala High School,
Mehemdabad and the witness has supported the case of the
prosecution and has stated that the incident had occurred
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/303/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/09/2025
undefined
on 23.06.2010 at around 10.00 hours after the recess was
over at the lobby of the staff room. During the cross-
examination by the learned advocate for the accused, the
witness has stated that whenever a teacher goes to a
classroom to take a class, she / he is alone and no teacher
would know what has occurred in the class during the
period. There was no complaint made to the school about
the incident that has occurred on 23.06.2010 and the
principal did not know about the incident.
7.3 PW4 - Rajnikant Ramniklal Vajani examined at Exh.
17 was working as a teacher in J. H. Sonawala High School
and the witness has supported the case of the prosecution
and has stated that on 23.06.2010 at around 09.35 am, it
was the recess time and at that time he was present and
having tea in the staff room along with Kishanlal Chavda,
Sudhaben Soni, Meenaben Dabhi and Jignaben Malad. At
that time the accused came in the staff room and abused
the complainant and threatened to kill her. During the
cross-examination, the witness has admitted that he did not
take any photographs about anything written on the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/303/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/09/2025
undefined
blackboard and he did not inform any superior officer in the
school. In the school they have separate staff rooms for the
ladies staff and for the gents staff which is at a distance of
about 100 feet away from each other. The incident as
narrated by him had occurred in the gents staff room.
7.4 PW5 - Sudhaben Ashwinkumar Soni examined at Exh.
18 was a teacher in Sheth J. H. Sonawala High School,
Mehemdabad and she has stated that on 23.06.2010 at
around 10.00 hours, she along with Vajani Sir, Meenaben
and Kishanbhai were present and the accused abused the
complainant and hurled caste slurs against her. The
incident had occurred in the big staff room. During the
cross-examination, the witness has stated that the gents sit
in the gents staff room and the ladies sit in the ladies staff
room and she does not know whether the accused was
teaching any students as she had not gone into any
classroom of the accused. She did not file any complaint
about the incident as stated by her.
7.5 PW6 - Mayankbhai Gordhanbhai Sathar examined at
Exh. 19 was also a teacher in the Sheth J. H. Sonawala
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/303/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/09/2025
undefined
High School and he has stated that on 23.06.2010 at
around 09.35 am during the recess hours, he was in the
staff room along with Vajani Sir, Jhala Sir, Meenaben and
other teachers and the incident has occurred when the
accused abused the complainant. During the cross-
examination, the witness has admitted that he was never in
a class which was being taught by the accused and no
student had ever complained to him about any act of the
accused.
7.6 PW7 - Minaben Chhotabhai Dabhi examined at Exh.
21 was a teacher in J. H. Sonawala High School,
Mehemdabad and she has stated that the incident has
occurred on 23.06.2010 between 09.30 to 09.45 am near
the staff room. During the cross-examination, the witness
has admitted that prior to this incident, no incident has
occurred where the accused had stated anything to any
person.
7.7 PW8 - Ronak Vikrambhai Patel examined at Exh. 24
was a student of the school and he has stated that the
accused would write abusive words against the complainant
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/303/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/09/2025
undefined
and would hurl caste slurs against her in class 12A. During
the cross-examination by the learned advocate, the witness
has stated that he did not inform anyone about these
incidents or acts of the accused and he did not narrate the
facts as stated in the statement before the police.
7.8 PW9 - Gaurav Rajeshkumar Patel examined at Exh. 25
was a student of Sonawala High School and a student of
class 12A and he has stated that the accused used to talk ill
about all others and would tease the complainant about her
caste. During the cross-examination, he has stated that he
had orally informed the complainant about the words stated
by the accused.
7.9 PW10 - Ranubha Kanubhai Chudasama examined at
Exh. 27 was the Principal of Sonawala High School and he
has stated that on 23.06.2010, Chavda Sir, Vajani Sir,
Meenaben Dabhi, Sudhaben, Jignaben, the complainant
and the accused were in the lobby when the accused
abused the complainant and hurled caste slurs against her.
The witness has produced a letter written to the
complainant at Exh. 28 and a letter written to the school
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/303/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/09/2025
undefined
Chairman about the accused at Exh. 29. The witness has
also produced documents at Exhs. 31 to 41 but during the
cross-examination has stated that there were no other
persons on 23.06.2010 and he was not present at that
place.
7.10 PW11 - Bipinbhai Ratilal examined at Exh. 43 was the
PSO who has registered the complaint and has produced
the extract of the Station Diary at Exh. 44.
7.11 PW12 - Punambhai Chhanabhai Baranda examined at
Exh. 48 is the Investigating Officer who has narrated the
procedure undertaken by him during investigation.
8. On appreciation of the entire evidence of the
prosecution, as per the panchnama of the place of offence
produced at Exh. 13, the incident has occurred in the
classroom of class 12A but as per the complaint, the
complainant has stated that the incident has occurred in
the school. The place of incident is not specified in the
complaint and if the deposition of the witnesses are
perused, the complainant has stated that the incident has
occurred on the first floor near the classes. PW3 - Kishanlal
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/303/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/09/2025
undefined
Ramdas Chavda has stated that the incident has occurred
in the staff room lobby, PW4 - Rajnikanth Ramniklal Vajani
has stated that the incident has occurred inside the staff
room, PW5 -Sudhaben Ashwinkumar Soni has stated that
the incident has occurred in the big staff room, PW6 -
Mayankbhai Gordhanbhai Suthar has stated that the
incident has occurred in the staff room and PW7 -
Meenaben Chhotabhai Dabhi has stated that the incident
has occurred near the staff room. PW10 - Ranubha
Kanubhai Chudasma who is the Principal was not present
at the time of the incident and there is no clarity regarding
the place where the incident has occurred. Moreover, the
incident as stated by the complainant has occurred on
23.06.2010 and the complaint has been filed on 28.07.2010
and there is a delay of almost 35 days in filing the
complaint which has not been explained. Moreover, the
caste certificate has merely been produced by the
complainant at Exh. 10 but there is no investigation
regarding this caste certificate and the complainant has
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/303/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/09/2025
undefined
stated that she has married in Sharma Community and
there is no evidence about the caste of the complainant.
9. 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.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/303/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/09/2025
undefined
10. The impugned judgement and order of acquittal
passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kheda at
Nadiad in Special (Atrocity) Case No. 71 of 2010 on
08.11.2012, is hereby confirmed.
11. Bail bond stands cancelled. Record and proceedings
be sent back to the concerned Trial Court forthwith.
Sd/-
(S. V. PINTO,J)
VASIM S. SAIYED
