Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Jeshaji Govaji Rajput on 10 September, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1193/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1193 of 2011
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE S.V. PINTO
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting No
==========================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
JESHAJI GOVAJI RAJPUT & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS. C.M. SHAH, APP for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR NIRAV K PADHIYAR(5678) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No.
1,2,3,4,6
NOTICE SERVED for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 7
RULE SERVED for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 5
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE S.V. PINTO
Date : 10/09/2025
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, 2nd Fast Track Court, Deesa
Camp Court, Deodar (hereinafter referred to as "the learned
Trial Court") in Special Case No. 83 of 2010 on 27.04.2011,
whereby, the learned Trial Court has acquitted the
respondents for the offence punishable under Sections 325,
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1193/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025
undefined
324, 504, 506(2) and 114 of Indian Penal Code, 1860,
Section 135 of the BP Act and Sections 3(1)(10) and 3(1)(11)
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 On 13.08.2008, at around 16.00 hours in village Thara
(Raha), the accused nos. 1 to 3 met the complainant -
Keshabhai Nagji Dalit and inquired from him as to why he
was not coming to their field to make their fence. The
complainant told them that he had work at home and the
accused nos. 1 to 3 got angry and started hurling caste
slurs against the complainant. The accused no. 1 was
armed with an iron rod and gave a blow below the elbow on
the left hand of the complainant and the complainant
sustained a fracture. The accused no. 2 was armed with a
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1193/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025
undefined
stick and he assaulted the complainant on the back with
the stick and the accused no. 3 assaulted the complainant
with blows and fists. On the same day, at around 18.30
hours, the accused nos. 4 to 6 came to the field of the
complainant situated at village Thara (Raha) and threatened
to kill the complainant if he filed a complaint against them
regarding the incident that had occurred. The complainant
filed the complaint at the Tharad Police Station under
Sections 323, 324 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860
and Section 3(1)(10) of the Atrocity Act which came to be
registered at Tharad Police Station I - C.R. No. 122 of 2005.
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, Tharad and as the said offences
against the accused were exclusively triable by the Court of
Sessions, the case was committed to the Sessions Court,
Basnaskantha at Deodar as per the provisions of Section
209 of Code of Criminal Procedure and the case was
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1193/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025
undefined
registered as Special Case No. 83 of 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
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, 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13 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 13 witnesses and produced
16 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
were 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.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1193/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025
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 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 Ms. C.M. Shah for the appellant
State and learned advocate Mr. Nirav Padhiyar for the
respondent nos. 1 to 4 and 6. Though served, the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1193/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025
undefined
respondent no. 5 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
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
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1193/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025
undefined
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 13 witnesses. PW1 -
Pirabhai Poonmaji Harijan examined at Exh. 15 and PW2 -
Shakrabhai Devrambhai Parmar examined at Exh. 17 are
the panch witnesses of the panchnama of the place of
offence which is produced at Exh. 16. Both the witnesses
have not supported the case of the prosecution and have
been declared hostile.
7.1 PW3 - Varjangbhai Jagmalbhai Rabari examined at
Exh. 18 and PW4 - Umabhai Bhikhabhai Rabari examined
at Exh. 20 are the panch witnesses of the arrest
panchnama of the accused nos. 1 to 3 produced at Exh. 19.
Both the witnesses have not supported the case of the
prosecution and have been declared hostile.
7.2 PW5 - Ranamalji Ajaji Rajput examined at Exh. 22
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1193/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025
undefined
and PW6 - Hiraji Senaji Rajput examined at Exh. 24 are the
panch witnesses of the arrest panchnama of the accused
nos. 4 to 6 produced at Exh. 23. Both the witnesses have
not supported the case of the prosecution and have been
declared hostile.
7.3 PW7 - Keshabhai Nagjibhai Meghwal examined at Exh.
25 is the complainant who has stated that on the date of the
incident he was going to his agricultural land and the
accused nos. 1, 2 and 3 met him and called him to make
their fence. Thereafter, he went to the shop of Ujmal to buy
some goods and the accused nos. 1 to 3 met him and the
accused no. 1 gave a blow on his left hand wrist. The
accused no. 2 gave a blow with a stick on his back and the
accused no. 3 assaulted him with fists. He was sitting on
the ground after being beaten and was taken to the hospital
at Tharad by his wife and Dinabhai and as his injuries were
more serious, he was taken to the Civil Hospital, Palanpur.
The accused did not say anything at the time of the assault
and the complainant has produced the complaint at Exh.
26. In the cross-examination, the witness has stated that
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1193/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025
undefined
six persons had come where he was making the fence of his
field and all six of them met him together and asked him to
come to make their fence. The shop of Ujmal is at a distance
of about 40 to 50 feet away from his house and Ujmal and
his brother Parasmal and their servant were present at the
shop. He had gone to the shop of Ujmal at 04.00 am and he
does not know whether there were any other persons
present there. Near the shop of Ujmal is the house of
Amrabhai, Maghabai Veerchanbhai, Raichanbhai Patel and
Rajput Bhamraji's grocery shop and there is a public road in
front of the shop. He was beaten while he was going to
Ujmal's shop to buy goods and as he shouted, Ujmal's
brother came out. He was unconscious after the assault and
he was assaulted in the village. His wife had given the
complaint and the police had asked him to affix his thumb
impression and he had accordingly done so. No incident has
occurred at the field.
7.4 PW8 - Mavaji Pratapji Harijan examined at Exh. 27 is
the brother of the complainant and an eyewitness to the
incident as per the case of the prosecution but the witness
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1193/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025
undefined
has not supported the case of the prosecution and has been
declared hostile. In the cross-examination, the witness has
admitted that he did not show the police any place of
incident and he had taken his brother in the tractor and he
had later known that his brother had fallen down from the
tractor.
7.5 PW9 - Dr. Ishwarbhai Ramjibhai Patel examined at
Exh. 28 is the Medical Officer who was on duty at Referral
Hospital, Tharad on 13.08.2008. The witness has stated
that at around 07.45 PM, Keshabhai Nagjibhai Harijan was
brought for treatment and the police yadi was received on
the next day at 02.30 pm. The injured in the history had
stated that Jashaji Govaji Rajput, Ajaji Vastaji Rajput,
Devabhai Asubhai Rajput, Ravtabhai Sonaji Rajput,
Kantibhai Sendhabhai Rabari and Halmataji Vesaji Rajput
had assaulted him with axe, stick and iron pipe at around
04.00 pm. On examination, there was a 1) vertical CLW at
posterior medial aspect of middle part of left forearm about
1.5 cm x 0.5 cm into muscle deep with red blood clot 2)
diffuse swelling of left forearm 3) an oblique contusion at
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1193/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025
undefined
back of chest on right side over 9 th rib near midline about
4.5 cm x 2 cm which was reddish in colour, 4) pain at left
knee joint but there was no visible mark of injury
tenderness was present, 5) linear abrasion at anteromedial
aspect of M3 part of left leg about 6 cm long with red blood
clot and 6) linear abrasions at anteromedial aspect of M3
part of right leg about 2 to 3 cm long with red blood clot.
Injury nos. 1, 2 and 3 were grievous while injury nos. 4, 5
and 6 were simple and injury no. 1, 2, 3 and 4 were
possible by hard and blunt object like lathi while injury nos.
5 and 6 were possible with a sharp pointed object. The
medical certificate of Keshavbhai Nagji Harijan is produced
at Exh. 31. During the cross examination the witness has
admitted that if a person was assaulted on the back three to
four times with sticks, three to four injuries would be found
and the injury no. 2 was a swelling and there was no
distance between the injury no. 1 and 2. In the medical
certificate at Exh. 31, injury no. 2 is not shown as internal
or external and injury no. 4 was not visible. Injury nos. 5
and 6 could not be possible with an axe and injury no. 1
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1193/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025
undefined
was possible with a cylindrical object like a pipe. As there
was a fracture, he was referred to the Orthopedic Surgeon.
7.6 PW10 - Dr. Hareshkumar Narayandanji Gadvi
examined at Exh. 32 is the Medical Officer who was on duty
at General Hospital, Palanpur on 14.08.2008. The witness
has stated that Keshavbhai Nagjibhai Harijan was brought
for treatment with a Refer Chit of Tharad Arogya Kendra
and in the history he had stated that on 13.08.2008 at
around 04.00 pm Govaji Jesaji Rajput and Vartaji Rajput
had assaulted him with an iron rod and an axe. On
examination there was a dark red colour contusion 2 cm x 4
cm on the back of right chest lower particulars, 1½ cm
stitched wound at left forearm at middle and swelling at
middle of left forearm. The x-ray of left radius showed
fracture of left ulna and x-ray of chest showed fracture on
right side 9th rib. The patient was admitted on 14.08.2008
and discharged on 28.08.2008. The injuries could be
caused by hard and blunt object and would recover within
four to six weeks if no complication arose. In the cross
examination the witness has admitted that besides the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1193/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025
undefined
injury stated, there were no other injuries on the body of the
complainant and injury no. 2 was a sutured wound which
was sutured from Tharad. The direction of injury no. 2 is
not shown and the patient was only referred for the
Orthopaedic Surgeon.
7.7 PW11 - Ugamben Keshavbhai Harijan examined at
Exh. 34 is the wife of the complainant who has supported
the case of the prosecution but during the cross
examination she has admitted that she is not an eyewitness
to the incident that had occurred near the shop of Ujmal
and she has not seen who had assaulted her husband. Her
brother-in-law had come to call her while she was at home
and she came to the village at about 5 o'clock and saw her
husband lying at their house in the village. Her husband
was bleeding as he was injured and his clothes were blood
stained and she had filed the complaint and the police had
registered the complaint as per her say and that thereafter
taken the thumb impression of her husband.
7.8 PW12 - Janmahamad Aminkhan examined at Exh. 36
is the PSO who has recorded the complaint of the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1193/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025
undefined
complainant and has thereafter, registered the complaint.
During the cross examination the witness has denied that
the contents of the complaint were written by the wife of the
complainant.
7.9 PW13 - Manjibhai Vechatbhai Ozat examined at Exh.
40 is the Investigating Officer who has narrated the entire
procedure undertaken by him during the investigation.
During the cross examination the witness has admitted that
on plain reading of the complaint, no offence under the
atrocity act was made out as there were no words or caste
slurs in the complaint. The panchnama of the place of
offence was drawn and Mavjibhai was present but he did
not show the place of incident. Mavjibhai is not an eye
witness to the incident and near the place of incident the
grocery shop of Ujmal and his residence and as per the say
of the complainant, the incident had occurred in front of
Ujmal's shop but he has not recorded the statement of
Ujmal or any of his family members. There are a number of
shops, pan shops and residences but he has not recorded
the statement of any neighbours and at the time of the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1193/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025
undefined
incident the complainant was staying in his agricultural
land. During investigation it was found that the incident
has occurred in two parts at two different places at two
different times but two panchnamas were not drawn. In the
charge sheet there was no person named Vastaji Govaji.
8. On appreciation of the entire evidence of the
prosecution as per the say of the complainant the incident
has occurred in two parts on 13.08.2008 at 16.00 hours at
the shop of Ujmal and thereafter at 18.30 hours at his
home. In the first incident the accused nos. 1, 2 and 3 had
assaulted him and thereafter, he had gone to his house in
the village where the accused nos. 4, 5 and 6 came and
threatened him. If the complaint produced at Exh. 26 is
produced no caste slurs have been used against the
complainant and as per the admission of the Investigating
Officer PW13 - Manjibhai Vechatbhai Ozat, no offence
under the Atrocity Act was made out as per the complaint.
Immediately after the incident, the complainant was taken
to Referral Hospital, Tharad and before the Medical Officer,
the complainant has informed that he has been assaulted
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1193/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025
undefined
by Jashaji Govaji Rajput, Ajaji Vastaji Rajput, Devabhai
Hasubhai Rajput, Ravtabhai Sonaji Rajput, Kantibhai
Sendhabhai Rabari and Halmataji Vastaji Rajput and
thereafter, the complainant was sent to the General
Hospital Palanpur where he has named only two persons
Govaji Jasaji Rajput and Vastaji Ajaji Rajput. There is a
contradiction in the weapons also as stated by the
complainant and before the Medical Officer at Referral
Hospital, CHC, Tharad the complainant has stated that he
was assaulted with axe, sticks and iron pipe whereas before
the Medical Officer at General Hospital, Palanpur he was
assaulted with an iron rod and an axe. The Medical Officer
- PW9 - Dr. Ishwarbhai Ramjibhai Patel has clearly opined
that no injury was caused by an axe and there are major
contradictions in the deposition of the witness and there
are no independent witnesses to support the case of the
prosecution. PW8 - Mavaji Pratapji Harijan is the brother of
the complainant but he too has not supported the case of
the prosecution and has been declared hostile. PW11 -
Ugamben Keshavbhai Harijan is not an eyewitness to the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1193/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025
undefined
incident and there appears to be exaggeration in the
deposition of the complainant. Moreover, the caste
certificate of the complainant has been produced on record
at Exh. 44 by the Investigating Officer but no investigation
has been undertaken with regard to the caste of the
complainant and even otherwise the complaint does not
disclose any offence under the Atrocity Act. As stated by the
complainant, the first incident has occurred in front of the
shop of Ujmal which is in a residential area and there are
many shops and pan stalls nearby but no independent
witnesses have been examined by the prosecution.
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
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1193/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025
undefined
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.
10. The impugned judgement and order of acquittal
passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 2nd Fast
Track Court, Deesa Camp Court, Deodar in Special Case
No. 83 of 2010 on 27.04.2011, 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
