Gujarat High Court
The State Of Gujarat vs Hemaben Wife Of Ranjitsinh Ramsinh on 15 September, 2025
Author: Umesh A. Trivedi
Bench: Umesh A. Trivedi
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/353/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/09/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 353 of 2008
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH A. TRIVEDI Sd/-
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
✓
==========================================================
THE STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
HEMABEN WIFE OF RANJITSINH RAMSINH & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR. BHARGAV PANDYA, ADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the
Appellant(s) No. 1
MUNJAAL M BHATT(8283) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1,2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH A. TRIVEDI
Date : 15/09/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
[1] This appeal is filed under Section 378 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'the Code') by the State
of Gujarat challenging the judgment and order of acquittal
recorded by the learned Special Judge (Atrocity), Gandhinagar
dated 24.04.2007, whereby the respondents - accused have
come to be acquitted of the charges levelled against them.
[2] As such, along with accused Nos. 2 and 3, one
Ranjitsinh Ramsinh Chauhan, who happens to be the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/353/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/09/2025
undefined
husband of respondent No.1 herein and son of respondent
No.3 herein, also prosecuted in the same trial and convicted
for an offence under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code (for
short 'IPC'), whereas for other offences under Sections 324,
504, 506 and 114 of 'IPC' as also under Section 3 (1) (x) of the
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short 'the Act, 1989'), all the accused
have come to be acquitted.
[3] So far as present appeal is concerned, it is filed
only against the present respondents and not against the
original accused No. 1, though he is also charged for the
offences as stated hereinabove.
[4] As per the case of the prosecution, on 21.04.2006
when first informant - Manjulaben Devjibhai Maganbhai, who
is staying in Block No.70/3 of Sector 28 and carrying out
business of selling the old furnitures, present in the house
along with her husband and their employee, Rajesh
Kalpanath, at that time, original accused No.1 i.e. Ranjitsinh
Ramsinh was parking his truck and motorcycle, time and
again, just opposite the house of the first informant causing
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/353/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/09/2025
undefined
hurdle for the ingress and outgress of her house. Therefore,
accused No.1 was requested not to park in a manner which
may create hurdle for them, to which accused No.1 got
enraged and started abusing first informant. At that time,
present respondents - accused, wife and mother of accused
No.1- Ranjitsinh, also came there. Accused No.1 and
respondent No.1 herein being wife of accused No.1-
Ranjitsinh, started giving kick and fist blows to the first
informant, whereas respondent No. 2 herein i.e. mother of
accused No.1 alleged to have caught hold of first informant.
Because of the assault by accused No.1, she received various
injuries. In the very same incident, when her employee Rajesh
Kalpanath intervened, he was also assaulted by accused No.1
and had bitten on left hand shoulder. Accused No.1 is further
alleged to have uttered certain words, by which, first
informant is insulted of her caste within a public view.
However, since public started gathering there, accused had
moved themselves from the place.
[5] On the basis of such First Information Report, an
investigation came to be carried out by Local Police and having
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/353/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/09/2025
undefined
found the sufficient evidence against the accused, they were
charge-sheeted before the Court of Magistrate. Since the trial
against the accused is exclusively triable by the Special Court
i.e. Court of Sessions, the case came to be committed to it by
the learned Magistrate.
[6] After ensuring the compliance of the provisions of
'the Code', charge came to be framed against the accused. To
prove the case against the accused, prosecution examined
total 7 witnesses and produced and proved nearly 6
documents on record. On appreciation of the evidence led
before the Trial Court and on hearing the learned APP as also
learned advocate for the accused, as stated hereinabove,
original accused No.1 came to be acquitted so far as offence
under Sections 324, 504, 506 and 114 of 'IPC' as also under
Section 3(1) (x) of 'the Act, 1989', whereas he came to be
convicted for an offence under Section 323 of 'IPC' and
granted benefit of probation under the Probation of Offenders
Act, 1958 (for short 'the Act, 1958'). So far as present
respondents - accused are concerned, both of them have come
to be acquitted of the charges levelled against them.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/353/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/09/2025
undefined
[7] Being aggrieved by the judgment and order of
acquittal in respect of only these respondents are concerned,
State has preferred an appeal, whereas there is no appeal
preferred against the original accused No.1 for rest of the
offences alleged against him, despite his acquittal is recorded.
As such, State cannot discriminate, if at all there is any
evidence found so as to prefer an acquittal appeal, in between
the accused. At any rate, this appeal is preferred only against
the original accused Nos. 2 and 3, who are respondent Nos. 1
and 2 herein.
[8] Heard Mr. Bhargav Pandya, learned Additional
Public Prosecutor for the appellant - State. He took me
through the impugned judgment and order of acquittal as also
the evidence led before the Court. He has submitted that
evidence of the first informant is supported by other injured
witness i.e. employee of first informant and it is corroborated
by the medical evidence so far as both the injured are
concerned and, therefore, when there is other material
evidence on record of other sections of Penal Code, the learned
Judge could not have acquitted respondents - accused or even
accused No.1. He has further submitted that so far as
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/353/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/09/2025
undefined
contradiction mentioned by the learned Judge in the judgment
in respect of what is stated in the first information report and
deposition before the Court about assaulting or abetting the
commission of an offence by accused No.1 at the instance of
respondents - accused herein, unless it is brought in
evidence, learned Judge could not have referred the same as a
contradiction, even if first information report is exhibited. He
has further submitted that the evidence of both the injured
witnesses i.e. Manjulaben as also Rajesh are consistent and
corroborated by medical evidence. As coming out from the
evidence of both of them, respondents - accused are alleged to
have caught hold of the first informant Manjulaben,
facilitating the commission of crime by original accused No.1.
Therefore, according to his submission, if not for independent
offence of 'IPC', they could have been convicted for the offence
of abetment along with the original accused No.1. Therefore,
he requested that this appeal is required to be allowed and
they should be accordingly punished.
[9] As against that, Ms. Khushi Mehta, learned
advocate for Mr. Munjaal Bhatt, learned advocate for the
respondents - accused vehemently submitted that the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/353/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/09/2025
undefined
evidence led before the Court is inconsistent and insufficient
to convict the accused independently even for an offence of
abetment. She has further submitted that apparent
inconsistent evidence, so far as involvement of original
accused No.2 i.e. respondent No.1 herein, in the first
information report as also evidence of the first informant
creates doubt about the genuineness of the allegation made by
the first informant against both the respondents - accused.
She has further submitted that since they have been acquitted
by the learned Judge by assigning good reasons and State
has not challenged the acquittal of original accused No.1, so
far as offences alleged against all of them except under Section
323 of 'IPC' proved against accused No.1, State could not have
discriminated the respondents - accused, who are lady
accused. She has further submitted that their innocence is
further strengthened by the order of acquittal recorded by the
learned Judge. It is further submitted that even if two views
are possible of the evidence led before the Court, the view
which is favourable to the accused is to be accepted after
about 19 years and half. Since both the lady accused have
settled in their life, it should not be interfered with, that too,
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/353/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/09/2025
undefined
for petty offence of abetment, if at all it is proved. Therefore,
she has submitted that this Court may not entertain the
present appeal.
[10] Having heard the learned APP for the appellant -
State as also learned advocate for the respondents - accused,
let me examine whether appeal requires any consideration or
not?
[11] Since evidence of the first informant and injured
witness is elaborately discussed by the learned Judge in his
judgment, no deeper and further scrutiny is required even on
re-appreciation of evidence. Even presuming that evidence of
first informant alleging catching hold of her by both the
respondents - accused is believed to be true, which is
supported by even other injured witness - Rajesh Kalpanath,
then also they can be said to have committed an offence
abetting commission of an offence under Section 323 of 'IPC',
for which accused No.1, though convicted, has been granted
benefit of probation under the provision of 'the Act, 1958'.
Therefore, even if I have to interfere in this judgment and
order of acquittal, they being lady accused, they are on far
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/353/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/09/2025
undefined
better footing than even original accused No.1, who is granted
benefit of probation for an offence under Section 323 of 'IPC',
this benefit can also be granted to the abettor.
[12] However, as evidence has come on record,
respondent No.2 -accused, mother-in-law, appears to be
though denied, staying away in a nearby area and not with
original accused No.1 in the same block, which is alleged. Not
only that, the premises where original accused Nos.1 and 2
are staying, it is government accommodation, which is to be
granted to the government employees. As evidence has come
on record, neither of the accused is government employee so
as to have that premises. Even owner of the premises is also
not examined by the prosecution to prove that accused Nos.1
and 2 are staying in the same block. Be that as it may,
without entering deep into it, from the evidence of panch-
witness and panchnama drawn of the site, there is no
sufficient space where even truck can be parked so as to
create hurdle for the said ingress or outgress of the first
informant. Therefore, motive alleged against the accused for
the cause for which offence took place appears to be missing.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/353/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/09/2025
undefined
[13] So far as offence under 'the Act, 1989' is concerned,
the learned Judge has assigned ample reasons why it cannot
be invoked. Be that as it may, first informant has, in her
evidence, not uttered a single word alleging that any of the
respondents - accused have committed any offence under 'the
Act, 1989'. Therefore, keeping that offence outside the
consideration, the learned Judge has assigned good reasons
why other offences alleged under the 'IPC' are not made out.
Therefore, even if an offence of abetment is presumed to have
been committed by the respondents - accused, that would be
an offence of abetment of an offence under Section 323 of 'IPC'
only, for which, even convicted accused is granted benefit of
probation under 'the Act, 1958'. Even if, I have to interfere
with the judgment and order of acquittal and convict them for
the offence of abetment of committing an offence under
Section 323 of 'IPC' when accused No.1 is granted probation
under 'the Act, 1958', these two lady accused are also entitled
for the same. But, keeping in mind the time lag in between the
offence committed and the present status of the respondents -
accused, after about 19 and half years, I do not wish to
interfere in this judgment and order of acquittal, more
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/353/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/09/2025
undefined
particularly, when an endorsement on the cause-list shows
that despite notice issued to the first informant, she is
unserved as expired. The death certificate is also attached as
mentioned in the cause list.
[14] Therefore, even if two views of the case is possible,
the view which is favourable to the accused and taken by the
learned Judge assigning good reasons, has to be accepted.
Even if it is not to be accepted, then also both of them should
be granted probation as the original accused No.1 is granted
probation thereof.
[15] In that view of that matter, I don't see any reason to
interfere with the judgment and order of acquittal recorded by
the learned Judge. Hence, this appeal is dismissed. Record
and proceedings, if any, to be sent back to the concerned Trial
Court.
(UMESH A. TRIVEDI, J)
Lalji Desai
