Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Shankarbhai @ Popat Ganpatbhaimarwadi ... on 10 September, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1079/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1079 of 2011
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE S.V. PINTO Sd/-
========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
√
========================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
SHANKARBHAI @ POPAT GANPATBHAIMARWADI BHATI & ANR.
========================================================
Appearance:
MS.C.M.SHAH, APP for the Appellant(s) No. 1
BAILABLE WARRANT SERVED for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1
NOTICE UNSERVED for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 2
RULE SERVED for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1
========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE S.V. PINTO
Date : 10/09/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant - State
under Section 378(1)(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
(hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') against the judgment and
the order passed by the learned Special Judge, City Civil &
Special Judge, Ahmedabad (hereinafter referred to as 'the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1079/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025
undefined
learned Trial Court') in Special Case ( Atro) No. 22 of 2010 dated
25.01.2011, whereby, the learned Trial Court has acquitted the
respondent - accused from the offences punishable under
Sections 323, 294(b) and 506(2) of the Indian Penal Code
(hereinafter referred to as 'the IPC') and Section 3(1)(x) of the
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Atrocities
Act').
1.1. The respondent is hereinafter referred to as 'the
accused' as he stood in the rank and file in the original case, for
the sake of convenience, clarity and brevity.
2. The relevant facts leading to filing of the present
appeal are as under:
2.1. On 28.06.2007, at around 5.30pm, the accused came
to the house of the complainant Maheshbhai Babubhai
Vaadodara and started abusing Vasantben, the wife of the
complainant Maheshbhai Vaadodara as earlier there was a
quarrel between them. The accused hurled caste slurs and
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1079/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025
undefined
slapped the complainant and threatened to kill the complainant,
if he did not withdraw the complaints that he had filed earlier.
The complainant Maheshbhai Babubhai Vaadodara filed the
complaint at the Kagadapith Police Station under Section 323,
294(B), 506(2) of the IPC and Section 3(i)(x) of the Atrocities Act,
which came to be registered at Kagadapith Police Station, II-
C.R.No.3328 of 2007.
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 police papers were
provided to the accused as per the provisions of Section 207 of
the Code and a charge was framed by the learned Trial Court at
Exh.2 and the statement of the accused was recorded at Exh.3,
wherein, the accused denied all the contents of the charge and
the entire evidence of the prosecution was taken on record. The
prosecution produced oral and documentary evidences in
support of the case.
3.3. After the closing pursis was submitted by the learned
APP, the further statement of the accused under Section 313 of
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1079/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025
undefined
the Code was recorded. After hearing the arguments of the
learned APP and learned advocate for the accused and after
perusing the documents on record, the learned Trial Court, by
the impugned judgment and order, acquitted the accused.
4. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned
judgment and order passed by the learned Trial Court, the
appellant - State has filed the present appeal mainly stating that
the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Trial
Court is contrary to law, evidence on record and principles of
justice. The learned Trial Court has not considered the direct or
indirect evidence produced in this case connecting the accused
with the crime and has also not appreciated the oral as well as
documentary evidence on record and has straightway arrived at
the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove the case
beyond reasonable doubts. The learned Trial Court has erred in
apperciating the seriousness and the gravity of the offences and
should not have adopted a casual, callous and routine approach.
That the reasons given by the learned Trial Court appreciating
the evidence and while acquitting the accused, are not proper
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1079/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025
undefined
and are perverse and bad in law, and hence, the impugned
judgment and order deserves to be quashed and set aside.
5. Heard learned APP Ms.C.M.Shah for the appellant -
State. The respondent no.2 - original complainant has
remained unserved, as per the report of the Kagadapith Police
Station forwaded by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ahmedabad
dated 04.02.2025 and as per the report of the Police Inspector,
Kagadapith Police Station dated 10.09.2025, the original
complainant is not residing at the place mentioned in the cause
title. Perused the impugned judgment and order of acquittal and
have re-appreciated the entire evidence of the prosecution on
record of the case.
6. Learned APP Ms.C.M.Shah for the appellant - State
has taken this Court through the entire evidence produced by
the prosecution and has vehemently argued that the learned
Trial Court has not appreciated the evidence properly and the
prosecution has produced cogent evidence to prove the case
and has successfully proved the case against the accused but
the learned Trial Court has not considered the same and has
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1079/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025
undefined
acquitted the accused. The judgment and order of acquittal
passed by the learned Judge is contrary to law, evidence on
record and principles of justice. The judgment and order of
acquittal passed by learned Judge is based on inferences, not
warranted by facts of the case and also on presumption, not
permitted by law. Learned APP has urged this Court to quash
and set aside the impugned judgment and order of acquittal and
to find the accused guilty for the said offence. Learned APP has
urged this Court to allow the present appeal and impose
maximum sentence on the accused.
7. At the outset, before discussing the facts of the
present case, it would be appropriate to refer to the observa-
tions of the Apex Court in the case of Chandrappa & Ors. Vs.
State of Karnataka reported in 2007 (4) SCC 415, the Apex
Court has observed as under:
Recently, in Kallu Vs. 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
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1079/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025
undefined
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, reappreci-
ate and reconsider the evidence upon which the order
of acquittal is founded;
(2) The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 puts no limita-
tion, 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 com-
pelling 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 ac-
quittal. 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 pre-
sumed 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
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1079/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025
undefined
not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial
court.
8. It is a settled principle of law that in an appeal
against acquittal, the Appellate Court is circumscribed by limit-
ation that no interference has to be made in the order of acquit-
tal unless after appreciation of the evidence produced before
the learned Trial Court, it appears that there are some manifest
illegality of perversity which could not have been possibly ar-
rived at by the Court. It is also a settled principle that there is no
embargo on the Appellate Court to review the evidence but,
generally the order of acquittal shall not be interfered with as
the presumption of innocence of the accused is further
strengthened by the order of acquittal. The golden thread which
runs through the web of administration of justice in criminal
cases is that if two views are possible on the evidence adduced
in the case of the prosecution i.e. (i) guilt of the accused and (ii)
his innocence, the view, which is in favour of the accused,
should be adopted, and if the learned Trial Court has taken the
view in favour of the accused, the Appellate Court should not
disturb the findings of the acquittal. The Appellate Court can in-
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1079/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025
undefined
terfere with the judgment and order of acquittal only when there
are compelling and substantial reasons and the order is clearly
unreasonable and where the Appellate Court comes to conclu-
sion that based on the evidence, the conviction is a must.
9. In light of the above, the evidence produced by the
prosecution on record is appreciated and the prosecution has
examined PW-1 Maheshbhai Babubhai Vaadodara at Exh.9 and
the witness is the complainant who has supported the contents
of the complaint which is produced at Exh.10. During the cross-
examination, the witness has stated that in the staff quarters,
only persons of his community were residing and one house was
purchased by the accused. He is known to the accused, and in
the complaint, he has not stated that the accused had taken the
photograph of his wife..
9.1. PW-2 Vasantben Maheshbhai Vaadodara examined
at Exh.12, is the wife of the complainant and she has stated that
on the day of the incident, she had gone to the flour mill and at
that time, the incident has occurred. The accused was residing
in a house situated two-three lines behind their house and the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1079/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025
undefined
accused was forcing her to maintain a relationship with him and
she did not want to maintain the relationship. She had filed a
complaint at the Village Vigilance Office at Bhadra, Ahmedabad
which is produced at Exh.13. In the cross-examination, the
witness has admitted that she and the accused were in a
relationship for the past four years and her husband had come
to know about the relationship and there was a quarrel about the
same. The accused knew her caste, and at the time of the
incident, she had gone to the flour mill to grind grains. She used
to go with her younger son Jignesh to meet the accused and they
had taken photographs together. Her husband was unhappy
with her relationship with the accused.
9.2. PW-3 Pravinbhai Maheshbhai Vaadodara examined
at Exh.14 is the son of the complainant, and he has supported
the case of the prosecution. During the cross-examination, he
has admitted that the quarrel was with regard to his mother and
the accused and in a statement before the police, he did not
state that the accused had assaulted him.
9.3. PW-4 Madanbhai Karmaji Chavariya examined at
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1079/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025
undefined
Exh.15 and PW-5 Babuliben Ganapatbhai Marwadi examined at
Exh.16 are the independent witnesses, who, as per the case of
the prosecution, were eye witnesses to the incident. Both the
witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution and
have been declared hostile and during the cross-examination
by the learned APP, they have denied that they have witnessed
any quarrel between the complainant and the accused.
9.4. PW-6 Abdul Razak Abdul Karim Khokhar is the Police
Inspector, who has recorded the complaint of the complainant.
During the cross-examination, the witnesses admitted that the
complainant did not give his caste certificate at the time of filing
of the complaint.
9.5. PW-7 Ramanbhai Laujibhai examined at Exh.19 is the
PSO, who has registered the complaint.
9.6. PW-8 Dineshkumar Benjibhai Barwalia examined at
Exh.20 is the Investigating Officer, who has narrated the entire
procedure undertaken during investigation. In the cross-
examination, the witnesses has admitted that the complainant
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1079/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025
undefined
had given his Caste Certificate on 17-07-2007 and he had
arrested the accused on 29-06-2007.
10. On minute appreciation of the entire evidence of the
prosecution, it is on record that PW-2 Vasantben Maheshbhai
Vaadodara and the accused were in a relationship for 4 years
and the complainant Maheshbhai, Babubhai Vaadodara came to
know about the relations and the complaint has been filed. At
the time of filing of the complaint, the caste certificate of the
complainant was not given in the police station and it is on
record that the accused was aware of the caste of the
complainant and his wife, but still he had a relationship with her.
Moreover, in the deposition of the complainant, exaggerations
have come on record and facts, which have not been mentioned
in the complaint, have been stated in the deposition before the
court. PW-2 Vasantben Maheshbhai, the wife of the complainant
has admitted that she was not at home at the time of the incident
and she had gone to the flour mill for grinding grains and
independent witnesses PW-4 Madanbhai Karmaji Chawariya
and PW-5 Babuliben Ganpatbhai Marwadi have not supported
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1079/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025
undefined
the case of the prosecution. Hence, the prosecution has failed to
prove the case beyond reasonable doubts that the incident has
occurred and the accused had assaulted the complainant and
had hurled caste slurs against the complainant. Moreover, no
panchnama of the place of offence is produced on record and
there is no evidence about the caste certificate of the
complainant. The investigating officer has not conducted any
investigation with regard to the caste of the complainant.
11. In view of the above, 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
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1079/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025
undefined
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 the order passed by
the learned Special Judge, City Civil & Special Judge,
Ahmedabad in Special Case - Atro No.22 of 2010 (Atrocity)
dated 25.01.2011 is hereby confirmed.
13. Bail bond stands cancelled. Record and proceedings
be sent back to the concerned learned Trial Court forthwith.
Sd/-
(S. V. PINTO,J)
F.S.KAZI.....
