Gujarat High Court
Ahir Naran Govind Solanki vs State Of Gujarat on 18 September, 2025
Author: Gita Gopi
Bench: Gita Gopi
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/637/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/09/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 637 of 2007
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE GITA GOPI
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
√ ―
==========================================================
AHIR NARAN GOVIND SOLANKI & ANR.
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
ABATED for the Appellant(s) No. 2
MR ASHISH M DAGLI(2203) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR ROHANKUMAR RAWAL, APP for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE GITA GOPI
Date : 18/09/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Challenge was given by the appellants by filing
the appeal under Section 374(2) of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the judgment
and order of conviction and sentence dated
13.3.2007 passed by the learned 2nd Additional
Sessions Judge, Veraval in Atrocity Sessions
Case no.3 of 2004, whereby both the accused were
convicted for the offence punishable under
Section 332 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC)
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/637/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/09/2025
undefined
and were ordered to undergo sentence of three
years rigorous imprisonment and fine of
Rs.5,000/- with default stipulation that in
failure to pay the fine amount, further to
undergo six months rigorous imprisonment. Both
the accused were acquitted of the charges under
Sections 506(2) and 114 IPC and further were
acquitted for the charge under Section 3(1)(x)
of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities Act), 1989
(hereinafter referred to as "the Atrocities
Act").
2. During pendency of the present appeal, the
appellant no.2 being accused no.2 of the
Sessions Case died and hence, the present appeal
stood abated against him.
3. Learned advocate Mr. Ashish M. Dagli,
concentrating his argument in connection with
the appellant no.1, submitted that the
allegation under the Atrocities Act as well as
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/637/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/09/2025
undefined
Sections 504 and 506(2) IPC were not found to be
proved by the learned Trial Court Judge and
taking into consideration the crux of the
complaint, the offence under Section 332 IPC
would also not become believable. Advocate Mr.
Dagli submitted that the intent of the accused
becomes a crucial factor, which requires to be
examined in order to consider any act of the
accused to deter the public servant in discharge
of his public duty. Advocate Mr. Dagli submitted
that the accused were demanding for the solvency
certificate papers and the insistence was of the
accused to personally hand over the solvency
certificate since they were to be produced in
the Court of law for bail purpose. Advocate Mr.
Dagli submitted that the case has been put up by
the accused for issuance of the solvency
certificate. The complainant had demanded money,
which was not agreeable to the appellant-accused
and therefore, in counter, the FIR has been
filed. Advocate Mr. Dagli further submitted that
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/637/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/09/2025
undefined
the case of the complainant could not be proved
as alleged of causing injury since no medical
evidence has been produced during the trial, nor
the complainant himself had made any effort to
visit the Doctor for the treatment of the
injuries. It is also the submission of learned
advocate Mr. Dagli that the persons who were
alleged to be present at the office who was the
Sarpanch - Vimal Devsibhai Solanki and Sarman
Kachara Vadher at the Panchayat office have not
supported the complainant's case. It is their
specific evidence that no such incident had
occurred.
4. Countering the arguments, Mr. Rohankumar H.
Rawal, learned APP has submitted that the
undisputed fact, which has come on record is of
the presence of the complainant in the Panchayat
office, where both the accused had come there
and had abused the complainant and had caused
injury, while he was performing his duty. The
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/637/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/09/2025
undefined
very act itself proves the fact of voluntarily
causing hurt to deter the Talati-cum-Mantri, the
complainant to perform his duty. Mr. Rawal,
learned APP has submitted that threat of both
the accused were so severe that the complainant
had to place leave from his duty on that day and
immediately, the complainant had informed by fax
to the District Superintendent of Police and on
the basis of the fax, Police Sub-Inspector-Shri
Pandya of Talala Police Station had visited the
complainant for the registration of the
complaint. Referring to the observations made by
the learned Trial Court, Mr. Rawal submitted
that the learned Judge has rightly appreciated
the evidence on record and acquitted the accused
from other charges while the charges under
Section 332 IPC had been proved and therefore,
had requested to uphold the judgment of
conviction.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/637/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/09/2025
undefined
5. The conviction is under Section 332 IPC. For
ready reference, Section 332 IPC is reproduced
hereunder:-
"332. Voluntarily causing hurt to
deter public servant from his duty.--
Whoever voluntarily causes hurt to any
person being a public servant in the
discharge of his duty as such public
servant, or with intent to prevent or
deter that person or any other public
servant from discharging his duty as
such public servant or in consequence
of anything done or attempted to be
done by that person in the lawful
discharge of his duty as such public
servant, shall be punished with
imprisonment of either description for
a term which may extend to three years,
or with fine, or with both."
5.1 The ingredients of offence under Section 332 IPC
are:-
(i) hurt must have been caused to a public servant,
and
(ii) it must have been caused
(a) while such public servant was acting in the
discharge of his duty as such, or
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/637/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/09/2025
undefined
(b) in order to prevent or deter him from
discharging his duty as a public servant,
or
(c) in consequences of his having done or
attempted to anything in the lawful
discharge of his duty as a public servant.
5.2 The evidence which is necessary to establish the
offence under Section 332 IPC is the accused
voluntarily causing bodily pain, disease or
infirmity to the victim and the victim of hurt
is a public servant and at the time of causing
hurt, for the public servant concerned was
discharging his duties as public servant.
6. The allegation against both the accused as per
the charge framed below Exh.5 in Atrocity
Sessions Case no.3 of 2004 by the learned 2 nd
Additional Sessions Judge, Veraval refers that
on 2.9.2003 at about 12.30 hrs., the complainant
was serving as Talati-cum-Mantri at the Gram
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/637/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/09/2025
undefined
Panchayat office of Maljhinjhva Village. Both
the accused entered the office and demanded for
the solvency certificate papers to be given in
hand. The complainant refused to do so and
therefore, the accused got excited and it is
alleged that the accused gave fisticuffs to the
complainant and threatened to kill him and
thereby, offence under Sections 332, 506(2) and
114 IPC were charged against them.
7. No charge under Section 323 or like sections
which would fall under Section 321 IPC have been
invoked against the accused. Section 321 IPC
defines "voluntarily causing hurt". Thus, no
case of physical hurt was charged against the
accused. The learned Judge has also not believed
the case under Section 506(2) IPC of any threat
to the complainant. The case under the
Atrocities Act for the offence punishable under
Section 3(1)(x) of the Atrocities Act was also
not proved and not believed by the learned Trial
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/637/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/09/2025
undefined
Court Judge.
8. In background of the above position of the case,
the evidence of the complainant is required to
be revisited and reassessed to observe whether
there was any intention of the accused and more
specifically the present appellant to deter in
performance of his public duty.
9. PW1 - Dinesh Hardas Solanki and PW2 - Aamad @
Chiman Noormohammad are the Panchas of the
Panchnama of the place of offence Exh.12. Both
the Panchas have not supported the prosecution
case regarding the place, where the alleged
incident is said to have taken place. Moreover,
the Sarpanch - Vimleshkumar Devsibhai Solanki
examined as PW4, has denied the incident. He has
categorically stated that no such incident had
occurred in his presence and has stated that it
had not so happened that both the accused had
come before the complainant demanding for the
documents, which they had earlier given and had
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/637/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/09/2025
undefined
not so happened that on that day and time,
Talati-cum-Mantri had refused to give such
documents stating it to be of Government record
and that had informed that in the evening, he
would produce the same in the Mamlatdar office.
In the same way, the witness - Sarman
Kacharabhai Vadher has not supported the
prosecution case. Both the witnesses have stated
that it had not so happened that they had
intervened and had rescued the complainant.
10. The only evidence now remains on record is of
the complainant himself who testifies that on
2.9.2003, the incident had occurred and on the
day of the incident at about 9.30 a.m., he had
started from Veraval on his motorcycle and had
reached at about 10:00 a.m. at Maljhinjhva
Village and he was present on his duty by
opening the office. As per the deposition, the
Sarpanch of the Village Vimal and Sarman had
come in the Panchayat office and they were
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/637/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/09/2025
undefined
sitting there and thereafter, an hour later,
both the appellants had come to him in the
office, the appellant no.1 asked for the
documents of the solvency, which the accused had
given to the Talati on Monday. The accused had
asked him to return back those papers, so the
complainant stated that those were the
Government documents and he would return it back
in the evening at 06:00 p.m. at the Mamlatdar
office.
11. The deposition of the complainant, thus,
suggests that the present appellant was
demanding from the complainant those papers
which the accused had handed over to the
complainant. It is not that the accused was
asking from the complainant any other Government
documents, which the complainant was required to
issue in performance of his public duty. The
insistence of the accused to hand over those
documents in person would not be considered as
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/637/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/09/2025
undefined
anything illegal since the accused was demanding
his own papers, which he had handed over to the
complainant as stated by the complainant himself
that it was given to him on Monday.
12. The testimony further states that when the
complainant refused to give the documents, the
accused insisted for the documents there and
immediately in hand. The allegation was that the
appellant got excited and caught hold of his
collar and passed castiest remarks in presence
of Sarpanch - Vimal and Sarman who intervened to
release the complainant. This deposition of the
complainant has not been found proved by the
learned Trial Court Judge. The Sarpanch - Vimal
and Sarman have not supported the complainant.
The physical injury has not been proved. No
medical examination documents have been produced
on record to prove that hurt has been caused to
the public servant.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/637/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/09/2025
undefined
13. Further in the deposition, the complainant
stated that thereafter, he left on his
motorcycle for filing of the complaint and when
he was passing through Village Ghunsiya, at that
time, both the accused were found standing there
who stopped him and had threatened him that if
at all he would file any complaint, lest he
would not remain alive and therefore, the
complainant stated that because of the threat,
he did not file any complaint while came back at
Veraval and sent a fax to the police officer and
he had taken leave from the duty on that day. On
receipt of the fax by District Superintendent of
Police, Police Sub-Inspector - Shri Pandya from
Talala was sent for the complaint on 4.9.2003.
The complainant identified the complaint Exh.16.
The incident is alleged to have taken place on
2.9.2003 while the complaint was registered on
4.9.2003. PW6 - Ashok Shivkumar Pandya has
affirmed of his following the instructions of
the superior officer and visiting the house of
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/637/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/09/2025
undefined
the complainant and taking his complaint. The
witness - PW6 - Ashok Shivkumar Pandya has
affirmed that the complaint, which was given
before him, disclosed that it was some incident
with regard to solvency certificate of the
accused and the insistence of the accused to
hand over the documents personally to him, which
the complainant had denied to do so. The Deputy
Superintendent of Police - Suresh Pandey is
examined as PW7 who affirmed of receiving
wireless message on 4.9.2003. He had taken over
the investigation on 8.9.2003. He visited the
place of incident and had drawn the Panchnama.
The witness - PW7 stated that earlier prior to
the incident on 31.8.2003, there was a dispute
between the complainant and the accused and N.C.
Complaint no.92/03 was filed at Veraval City
Police Station and on the basis of that, a
Chapter Case was filed against the accused. The
said entry was placed in evidence at Exh.25
which is dated 31.8.2003. The said entry also
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/637/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/09/2025
undefined
discloses that the accused had visited the house
of the complainant on Sunday and had asked for
the signature for the solvency with regard to
their land, where the complainant had informed
that he would do so only after verification,
where entry at Exh.25 also states that the
accused had threatened the complainant to beat
him in case he fails to put his signature.
14. It appears that the dispute was with regard to
solvency certificate. The complainant in his
deposition has affirmed the fact that the
solvency certificate would be necessary to be
produced in the Court, which is issued on the
basis of the land. The insistence on 31.8.2003
was of issuance of signature of the solvency
certificate. It appears that though it was asked
for, the complainant had not issued the solvency
certificate. So again, on 2.9.2003, the accused
visited his office and asked for the papers,
which they had handed over to the complainant.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/637/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/09/2025
undefined
It does not appear that on 2.9.2003, the accused
were insisting the complainant for issuance of
the solvency certificate, rather they were
demanding back the documents, which they had
handed over for the solvency certificate.
15. In the case of D. Chattaiah & Anr. v. State of
Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1978 SC 1441, it has been
observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court with
regard to intent to prevent or deter a public
servant from discharge of his duties. The
relevant observations are as under:-
"The intent to prevent or deter a
public servant from discharging his
duties as such public servant is an
essential ingredient of the charge
under the second part of S.332.
Where the facts disclose that a
public servant was assaulted while
in office as a sequel of an earlier
private quarrel and the assault had
no real nexus or casual connection,
or consequential relation with the
performance of the public servant's
duty as public servant, the accused
could not be charged and convicted
under S.332, I.P.C. (Conviction
altered to one under S.323 in the
instant case)."
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/637/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/09/2025
undefined
16. Here in the case of D. Chattaiah (supra), it has
been noted that the incident was not the outcome
of anything connected with the performance of
the complainant's duty as public servant, nor
was there any oblique allegation suggesting that
he was assaulted with intent to prevent or deter
him from doing his official duty. All that was
alleged by in the FIR was that while he was
attending to dispatch work in the office on
29.11.1968 afternoon, three accused approached
and questioned him as to why he had abused them.
On the informant's denial of the accusation,
they beat him and in so assaulting the
informant, the accused used a stick and scissor.
Here in this case, no such case of physical hurt
has been proved. The intent of the accused to
deter him from performing any public duty is
also not proved. The evidence of the complainant
suggests that the accused were demanding back
the documents, which they had handed over to the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/637/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/09/2025
undefined
complainant. The complainant had connected the
accused demand for the documents as was for
issuance of the solvency certificate. The
earlier incident which had culminated into N.C.
Complaint was dated 31.8.2003, while the alleged
incident is of 2.9.2003, which complaint came to
be filed on 4.9.2003 and the entry in the Police
Station at Exh.22 refers that the accused had
asked for the documents with regard to solvency
certificate in person and when he denied to give
so, the complainant alleged that he was deterred
in performing his duties alleging that he
sustained fisticuffs and threat to life. The
case of hurt has not been proved, nor the case
of threat has been believed by the learned Trial
Court. The genesis of the incident is of accused
demanding the documents, which they had handed
over to the complainant as Talati-cum-Mantri.
The allegation is also made in the defence that
the complainant was demanding bribe amount for
issuance of the solvency certificate. Though
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/637/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/09/2025
undefined
that fact has not been proved, however, if the
N.C. Complaint Exh.25 dated 31.8.2003 is read
with the complaint dated 4.9.2003, then, the
accused had initially asked for the solvency
certificate. However, it appears that the
complainant had failed to issue the same and
therefore, the accused had demanded back the
documents in connection with the solvency
certificate, which as per the complainant were
handed over to him on Monday. As referred in the
case of D. Chattaiah (supra), even if an assault
has been made and assault has no real connection
or nexus or relation with the performance by the
complainant as a public servant and when there
is no evidence to show that the intent of the
assailant was to prevent or discharge of his
duty, then no conviction can lie under Section
323 IPC.
17. In view of the analysis of the evidence with the
ingredients as mandated under Section 332 IPC
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/637/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/09/2025
undefined
and the case law referred to hereinabove, this
Court finds that the conviction under Section
332 IPC of the present appellant no.1 is
erroneous and is required to be set aside.
18. In the result, the appeal is allowed in the
above terms. The judgment and order of
conviction and sentence dated 13.3.2007 passed
by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge,
Veraval in Atrocity Sessions Case no.3 of 2004
is set aside. Bailbond discharged. The appellant
no.1 is acquitted of all charges. Registry is
directed to send the record and proceedings back
to the concerned Trial Court forthwith.
(GITA GOPI,J)
Maulik
