Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Dahyabhai Haribhai Rabari on 8 September, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1334/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/09/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL (AGAINST ACQUITTAL) NO. 1334 of 2013
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE S.V. PINTO
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting No
==========================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
DAHYABHAI HARIBHAI RABARI & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS. C.M. SHAH, APP for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR N P CHAUDHARY(3980) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1,2
MR TUSHAR CHAUDHARY(5316) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No.
1,2
NOTICE SERVED for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 3
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE S.V. PINTO
Date : 08/09/2025
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
3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Deesa (hereinafter referred
to as "the learned Trial Court") in Special Case No.
114/2010 on 22.07.2013, whereby, the learned Trial Court
has acquitted the respondents for the offence punishable
under Sections 504, 506(2) and 114 of Indian Penal Code,
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1334/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/09/2025
undefined
1860 and Section 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 Rajiben - widow of Chamanbhai
Dharmabhai Valmiki had about 8 vighas of agricultural land
in joint ownership situated in the outskirts of village
Motakapara and the land was mortgaged to the accused by
her husband thrice for the amounts of Rs. 24000/-, Rs.
27000/- and Rs. 28000/- and in all an amount of Rs.
79000/- was taken as mortgage amount. As per the
agreement, the mortgage was to be released whenever the
amount was paid and on 20.08.2009, the complainant -
Rajiben Chamanbhai Valmiki and her brother-in-law -
Khemabhai were going to return the mortgage amount to
the accused. When they approached the accused, the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1334/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/09/2025
undefined
accused got angry and refused to take the amount and
abused the complainant and her brother-in-law Khemabhai
and hurled caste slurs against them. The complainant filed
a complaint at the Bhildi 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
Bhildi Police Station I - C.R. No. 3066 of 2008.
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, Deesa 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 No. 114/2010.
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/1334/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/09/2025
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 were recorded at
Exhs. 8 and 9 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 8 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/1334/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/09/2025
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 doubt 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 and learned advocate Mr. N.P. Chaudhary for the
respondent nos. 1 and 2. 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
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1334/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/09/2025
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. 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
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.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1334/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/09/2025
undefined
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
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
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1334/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/09/2025
undefined
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
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
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1334/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/09/2025
undefined
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 eight witnesses. PW1 -
Rajiben Chamanbhai Valmiki examined at Exh. 14 is the
complainant who has supported the facts of the complaint
which is produced at Exh. 25. In the cross examination, the
complainant has admitted that the survey number of the
agricultural land is not mentioned in the complaint and
whenever they were in need of money, they would take the
money from the accused and a writing for the same would
be executed. She is not aware of the writing as she was not
with her husband whenever the amount was taken and she
does not remember which survey number was given to the
accused on mortgage. The witness has admitted that the
property was in joint ownership and she and her brother-
in-law - Khemabhai had gone to the well of Pachabhai
Haribhai. They had gone to get some money and the
accused no. 2 refused to give them money and they
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1334/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/09/2025
undefined
returned home. That prior to this incident, she did not have
any dispute with the accused and she has not given the
accused any notice regarding release of the mortgage. At
the time of the incident, the accused were alone in the field
and there is a narrow pathway to approach the field. A
number of persons use that pathway and the agricultural
land of her brother-in-law is survey no. 127 which is being
tilled by the accused no. 2. The witness has admitted that
the land was mortgaged and they had gone to the house of
the accused no. 2.
8.1 PW2 - Khemabhai Dharmabhai examined at Exh. 17 is
the brother-in-law of the complainant and an eye witness to
the incident and he has supported the say of the
complainant. In the cross-examination, the witness has
admitted that they have in all eight vighas of land and his
brother had taken money in parts from the accused but
there is no document regarding this amount. He has stated
that the land was mortgaged in his statement before the
police but he does not know the conditions for the
mortgage.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1334/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/09/2025
undefined
8.2 PW3 - Karshanbhai Chamanbhai Valmiki examined at
Exh. 18 is the son of the complainant and he has
supported the case of the prosecution but in the cross-
examination, the witness has admitted that he does not
know which survey number was mortgaged to the accused.
The land was in the joint ownership of the family and the
dealings were being done by his father and whenever his
father was in need of some money, he would take the same
from the accused. The witness has stated that his mother
and his uncle had gone to pay the amount and he did not
accompany them.
8.3 PW4 - Mithabhai Jogabhai Desai examined at Exh. 20
and PW5 - Rajanbhai Pratapbhai Luhar examined at Exh.
22 are the panch witnesses of the panchnama of the place
of offence which is produced at Exh. 21. Both the witnesses
have not supported the case of the prosecution and have
been declared hostile. The panchnama produced at the Exh.
21 shows the place of offence as the place where the
buffaloes were kept below a sesame tree in the field of
Khemabhai Dharmabhai in the outskirts of village
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1334/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/09/2025
undefined
Motkapara.
8.4 PW6 - Khemabhai Gulabhai examined at Exh. 24 is
the PSO who has recorded the complaint of the complainant
which is produced at Exh. 25.
8.5 PW7 - Mahendrasingh Ratansingh Rathod examined at
Exh. 27 and PW8 - Zalabhai Manjibhai Varsad examined at
Exh. 28 are the Investigating Officers who have investigated
the offence and have narrated in detail the procedure
undertaken by them during investigation. The caste
certificate of the complainant is produced at Exh. 29 and
the FIR is produced at Exh. 30.
9. On minute appreciation of the entire evidence of the
prosecution, if the complaint produced at Exh. 25 is
perused, there is no survey number of the land that was
mortgaged to the accused as stated by the complainant in
the complaint and the complainant has admitted that she
does not know which field was mortgaged to the accused.
The transaction regarding the land was done by her
husband who had expired six months prior to filing of the
complaint and she has stated that she and her brother-in-
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1334/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/09/2025
undefined
law were going to pay the amount but the complaint does
not clearly state the place where they met the accused.
There is no iota of evidence on record that the land was
mortgaged to the accused and except for the bald
allegations of the complainant and her brother-in-law -
Khemabhai, there is no evidence that any such incident has
occurred. There are no independent witnesses examined by
the prosecution and no document regarding any land being
in the ownership of the complainant have been produced on
record. There are no copies of village form no. 7/12, village
form no. 8A or village form no. 6 that have been produced
and there is no evidence that the possession of the land
was in fact given to the accused or whether it was in the
possession of the complainant. Moreover, the caste
certificate has been produced by the Investigating Officer at
Exh. 29 but there is no iota of evidence as to whether any
investigation regarding the caste of the complainant was
carried out by the Investigating Officers.
10. In view of the settled position of law, the learned Trial
Court has appreciated the entire evidence in proper
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1334/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/09/2025
undefined
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 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Deesa
in Special Case No. 114/2010 on 22.07.2013, is hereby
confirmed.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1334/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/09/2025
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
