Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Ishwarbhai Dungarbhai Prajapati on 11 September, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1941/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/09/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1941 of 2012
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE S.V. PINTO
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting No
==========================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
ISHWARBHAI DUNGARBHAI PRAJAPATI & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS. C.M. SHAH, APP for the Appellant(s) No. 1
ABATED for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1
MR JAGDHISH SATAPARA(5524) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No.
2,3,4
RULE SERVED for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 5
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE S.V. PINTO
Date : 11/09/2025
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
Special Judge, Surendranagar (hereinafter referred to as
"the learned Trial Court") in Special Case No. 47/2011 on
11.09.2012 whereby, the learned Trial Court has acquitted
the respondents for the offence punishable under Sections
427, 504 and 114 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1941/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/09/2025
undefined
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 During the pendency of the appeal, the respondent
no.1 has expired and vide order of this Court dated
15.02.2023 the appeal qua the respondent no. 1 is disposed
of as infructuous.
1.2 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 - Tejabhai Amrabhai Solanki was
residing in Solanki Niwas, Nava Darwaja, Vadhwan and on
20.04.2011 at around 16.00 hours, the accused armed with
a sword, spade and pipe came to the house of the
complainant and removed the pipeline that was kept behind
the house of the complainant. The complainant filed the
complaint under Section 504, 427 and 114 of the Indian
Penal Code, 1860, Section 135 of the B.P. Act and Section
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1941/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/09/2025
undefined
3(1)(10) of the Atrocity Act which came to be registered as
Vadhwan Police Station II - C.R. No. 3026 of 2011.
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, Vadhwan and as the said offences
against the accused were exclusively triable by the Court of
Sessions, the case was committed to the Sessions Court,
Surendranagar as per the provisions of Section 209 of Code
of Criminal Procedure and the case was registered as
Special Case No. 47/2011.
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. 5 was framed against the
accused and the statements of the accused was recorded at
Exhs. 6, 7, 8 and 9 respectively, wherein, the accused
denied the contents of the charge and the entire evidence of
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1941/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/09/2025
undefined
the prosecution was taken on record.
2.4 The prosecution examined 10 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
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
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1941/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/09/2025
undefined
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. Jagdish Satapara for the
respondent nos. 2 and 4. 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
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1941/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/09/2025
undefined
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.
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
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1941/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/09/2025
undefined
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
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
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1941/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/09/2025
undefined
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
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 ten witnesses. PW1 -
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1941/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/09/2025
undefined
Tejabhai Amrabhai Solanki examined at Exh. 12 is the
complainant and he has supported the facts of the
complaint which is produced at Exh. 13. The complainant
has also produced his caste certificate at Exh. 14. During
the cross-examination, the witness has stated that to the
north is the cattle shed of the accused where they tie their
cattle and to the east is the Harijanwas and to the left of
the Harijanwas are the residences of the accused. The
gutter of the Nagarpalika is east-west and to the south of
the gutter is the house of the accused. The water of the
gutter from the house of the complainant is disposed of on
the north side and he did not get any permission from the
Nagarpalika for laying any pipeline. He does not know
whether the accused had given any application objecting to
the pipeline and at the time of the incident, it was summer
and nobody else was outside.
8.1 PW2 - Manubhai Tejabhai Solanki examined at Exh.
15 is the son of the complainant who has stated that his
brother - Dungarbhai had given an application in the
Nagarpalika for the gutter pipeline and the Nagarpalika
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1941/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/09/2025
undefined
employees had come but they were sent back and
submissions were made before the Chief Officer. The Chief
Officer had himself come to the spot and had given the
permission to fit the pipes which was not liked by the
accused and hence, they had damaged the pipeline. He had
gone to the Sanitation Department along with his father
and had called plumber - Popatbhai and had repaired the
pipe and as the accused came to know that they had
repaired the pipe, they came armed with weapons and
abused his father and had broken the pipe. He was inside
of the house and when he came out, he saw that the pipe
was broken. During the cross-examination by the learned
advocate for the accused, the witness has stated that an
application was given in the Nagarpalika and at the time of
the incident, he was in his house. When he came outside,
on hearing the shouts, a number of persons had gathered
and they were of his community.
8.2 PW3 - Popatbhai Kalubhai examined at Exh. 16 is an
eyewitness to the incident as per the case of the
prosecution and he has stated that he was working at the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1941/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/09/2025
undefined
place of the complainant and at that time, the accused no.
1 and his three sons came and they had verbally assaulted
the complainant. He separated them and they had abused
the complainant and thereafter, he went home. The younger
son of the accused no. 1 had a pipe and the other two sons
had swords and one had spade. During the cross-
examination by the learned advocate for the accused, the
witness has stated that at the time of the incident, he was
doing the pipe fitting of the bathroom and when he came
out, there were a number of persons gathered there. He did
not see anyone breaking the pipe but he had seen the
broken pipe. The workers from the Nagarpalika were also
present and after the pipeline was fixed no abuses were
hurled by the accused.
8.3 PW4 - Mehboobbhai Usmanbhai Mankad examined at
Exh. 17 and PW5 - Kantibhai Kushalbhai Joshi examined at
Exh. 19 are the panch witnesses of the panchnama of the
place of offence, which is produced at Exh. 18. Both the
witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution.
8.4 PW6 - Altafbhai Khan Muhammad Chauhan examined
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1941/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/09/2025
undefined
at Exh. 20 is the panch witness of the arrest panchnama
produced at Exh. 21. The witness has not supported the
case of the prosecution and has been declared hostile.
8.5 PW7 - Bharatbhai Vajubhai Satani examined at Exh.
22 and PW8 - Pareshbhai Bhikhabhai examined at Exh. 24
are the panch witnesses of the arrest panchnama which is
produced at Exh. 23. Both the witnesses have not
supported the case of the prosecution and have been
declared hostile.
8.6 PW9 - Balmukund Gautamprasad Bhatt is the PSI who
has recorded the complaint of the complainant.
8.7 PW10 - Vishram Dhanjibhai Kharadi examined at Exh.
26 is the Investigating Officer who has narrated in detail the
procedure undertaken during the investigation. During the
cross-examination, the witness has stated that he had gone
to the place of incident on 21.04.2011 at around 08.00 am
and had taken the statements of the neighbours. At the time
of drawing the panchnama of the place of offence, besides
the broken pipes, there were no other marks at the place
and no weapons were found.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1941/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/09/2025
undefined
9. On appreciation of the entire evidence of the
prosecution, the complainant and his son have stated that
the accused were armed with sword, spade and pipe and
had come to the house of the complainant and had
damaged the pipeline and at the time of the incident, there
were many people, as the incident has occurred in the
residential area but no independent witnesses have been
examined by the prosecution. There is no iota of evidence
that the accused had assaulted the complainant and even
though, as per the say of the complainant, the accused
were armed with weapons, no injury was found on the
complainant. PW2 - the son of the complainant has stated
that he was inside the house at the time of the incident and
PW3 - Popatbhai Kalubhai has not clearly stated as to who
had damaged the pipe at the time of the incident. There is
no evidence to prove that the incident has occurred and the
charge has not been proved by the prosecution beyond
reasonable doubts. As per the complainant - Haribhai
Bhojabhai Javat and Pravinbhai Malibhai Valera were eye
witnesses to the incident but they have not been examined
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1941/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/09/2025
undefined
before the learned Trial Court. PW3 - Popatbhai has stated
that he was doing the fitting of the bathroom at the time of
the incident and he was inside and hence, he cannot be
said to be an eye witness to the incident. Moreover, the
caste slurs that have been hurled as stated by the
complainant in the complaint are totally different as stated
in the deposition and there is no independent evidence to
support the say of the complainant.
10. 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
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1941/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/09/2025
undefined
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 Special Judge, Surendranagar in
Special Case No. 47/2011 on 11.09.2012 is hereby
confirmed.
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
