Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Pramodbhai Shankarbhai Patel on 18 September, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/810/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/09/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 810 of 2012
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE S.V. PINTO Sd/-
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
No
==========================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
PRAMODBHAI SHANKARBHAI PATEL & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR. ADITYA JADEJA, APP for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR Y J PATEL(3985) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3,4
RULE SERVED for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 5
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE S.V. PINTO
Date : 18/09/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant State under Section
378(1)(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the
judgement and order of acquittal passed by the learned Special Judge,
Vadodara (hereinafter referred to as "the learned Trial Court") in
Special (Atrocity) Case No. 13 of 2010 on 08-02-2011, whereby, the
learned Trial Court has acquitted the respondents for the offence
punishable under Sections 504, 506(2) and 114 of Indian Penal Code,
1860 (hereafter referred to as "IPC" for short) and Section Section 3(1)
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/810/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/09/2025
undefined
(10) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as "Atrocities Act").
1.1 As per the report of Police Inspector, Makarpura Police
Station, Vadodara City, the respondent No. 1 - Pramodbhai Shankarrai
Patel has expired on 10-12-2014 and a copy of the death certificate has
been submitted along with the report, which is submitted on record by
learned APP. In view of the report, the appeal qua the respondent No. 1 -
Pramodbhai Shankarrai Patel has become 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 accused No. 2 Shabdadasiben w/o Pramodbhai Shankarbhai
Patel was the Sarpanch of Chhapad Gram Panchayat and the accused No.
4 - Punitaben w/o of Jigneshbhai Hamukhbhai Patel was the Deputy
Sarpanch of Chhapad Gram Panchayat. The accused Nos. 1 and 3 are the
husbands of the accused Nos. 2 and 4 respectively. The complainant -
Bikhiben, w/o Mansinghbhai Dalpatbhai Vasava, had encroached on area
of 30 feet x 30 feet belonging to the Gram Panchayat in front of her
house and was using the place for her own personal use and on 29-12-
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/810/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/09/2025
undefined
2009 in the afternoon, on 30-12-2009 in the evening and on 5-1-2010 at
around 10.30 am, the accused went to the house of the complainant and
asked her to vacate the open place, abused her, threatened to kill her and
hurled caste slurs against her. The complainant filed the complaint at the
Makarpura Police Station under Section 504, 506(2) and 114 of the IPC
and Section 3(1)(10) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1889, which came to be registered at
Makarpura Police Station, II-C.R.No. 4 of 2010.
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 Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Vadodara and as the said offences against the
accused was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the case was
committed to the Sessions Court, Vadodara, as per the provisions of
Section 209 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and case was registered
Special (Atrocities) Case No. 13 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. 06 was
framed against the accused and the statements of the accused were
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/810/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/09/2025
undefined
recorded at Exh.7 to Exh.10, wherein, the accused denied all the contents
of the charge and the entire evidence of the prosecution was taken on
record.
2.4 The prosecution produced nine oral and ten documentary
evidences to bring home the charge against the accused and after the
learned Additional Public Prosecutor filed the closing pursis at Exh. 46 ,
the further statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 were recorded, wherein, the accused denied all
the evidence of the prosecution on record. The accused refused to step
into the witness box or examine witnesses on their behalf and stated that
a false case has been filed against them. 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 judgment
and order was pleased to acquit all the accused from all the charges
leveled against them.
3. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said judgement and
order of acquittal, the appellant - State has filed the present appeal
mainly stating that the impugned judgement 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 cross-examination,
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/810/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/09/2025
undefined
nothing adverse has been elicited in favour of the respondents. The case
has been proved beyond reasonable doubts and the prosecution has
successfully established the case against the respondents and the
judgement and order of acquittal is unwarranted, illegal and without any
basis in the eyes of law and the reasons stated while acquitting the
respondents 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 Mr. Aditya Jadeja for the appellant - State,
learned advocate Mr. Y.J.Patel appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 to 4.
Perused the impugned judgement and order of acquittal and have re-
appreciated the entire evidence of the prosecution on record of the case.
5. Learned APP Mr. Aditya Jadeja for the appellant-State has taken
this Court through the entire evidence of the prosecution on record of the
case and submitted that the judgment and order of acquittal is contrary to
law and evidence on record and the learned trial Court has not
appreciated the direct and indirect evidence in the case. The complainant
has supported the case of the prosecution and the witnesses have
identified the accused before the learned trial Court. The prosecution has
fully proved the case beyond reasonable doubts but the learned trial
Court has relied on minor contradictions and has given undue weightage
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/810/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/09/2025
undefined
with regard to the place of incident. That the order passed by the learned
trial Court is illegal, improper and perverse and is required to be quashed
and set aside and the appeal of the appellant must be allowed.
6. Learned advocate Mr. Y.J.Patel appearing for the respondent Nos.
1 to 4 submits that the judgments and order has been passed after
appreciation of all the evidence and the learned Court has appreciated the
evidence in proper perspective and hence, the appeal of the appellant-
State must be rejected.
7. At the outset, before discussing the facts of the present case, it
would be appropriate to refer to the observations of the Apex Court 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 v. 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 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;
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/810/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/09/2025
undefined
(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 iTimes New Romann 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 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.
8. The law with regard to acquittal appeals is well crystallized and in
acquittal appeals, there is a 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
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/810/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/09/2025
undefined
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.
9. In light of the above settled principles of law, the evidence on
record of the case is appreciated and Prosecution Witness No. 1
Bhikhiben Mansinghbhai Vasava examined at Exh. 18 is the complainant
and she has stated that there is a civil case regarding the land pending
before the Civil Court, Vadodara and on 20-12-2009, the accused had
come and cut the trees that were in the land and had also broken the room
and damaged the tin roofs. She had filed the complaint, which is
produced at Exhibit 19.
During the cross-examination by the learned advocate for the
accused, the complainant has stated that, she had given the evidence in
the police regarding the payment of the loan and the land was
government land, which was encroached and trees were planted in the
land. The land was a large piece of land, in which, 2-3 houses could be
built and the Gram Panchayat had given her a notice to remove the
encroachment. She had filed an application against the notice before the
Taluka Panchayat and District Panchayat and had also filed a civil suit,
but no injunction was given by the Civil Court. During the pendency of
the suit, the Panchayat had given her 2-3 notices for removal of the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/810/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/09/2025
undefined
encroachment and the encroachment department had come and measured
the land and thereafter had come to the spot and removed the
encroachment with a J.C.B. machine and the press reporters had also
come at that time. The removal of the encroachment was one week prior
to the incident and she had gone to the Collector office and had given an
application. At the time of removal of the encroachment, the accused
Nos. 2 and 4 were present and she had given an application to the
Collector for the land but the accused had filed objections regarding the
same. After the encroachment was removed, she had once again
encroached the land and was placing her tractor and cattle in that land.
The witness has categorically stated that if the accused did not remove
the encroachment, she had no problem with them. The witness has also
produced her Caste Certificate at Exhibit 10.
9.1 Prosecution Witness No. 2 - Madhuben Chhanbhai Vasava
examined at Exh. 26, Prosecution Witness No. 3 Jayantibhai
Bhagwanbhai Vasava examined at Exh.28 and Prosecution Witness No. 4
- Thakurbhai Mansinghbhai Vasava examined at Exh.29 are the
eyewitnesses to the incident, who have supported the case of the
prosecution. The witnesses have stated that the encroachment department
had come and they had removed the encroachments.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/810/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/09/2025
undefined
9.2 Prosecution Witness No. 5 - Jyotishbhai Ranjitbhai Vasava
examined at Exh.33 is the son of the complainant, who has supported the
case of the prosecution. The witness has stated that the land was
encroached and the encroachment department had come and removed the
encroachment.
9.3 Prosecution Witness No. 6 - Pannalal Ranjitbhai Vasava,
examined at Exhibit 34 is the son of the complainant, who has supported
the case of the prosecution and has stated that the accused had come and
removed the encroachment.
9.4 Prosecution Witness No. 7 - Vinodkumar Mohanlal Jaiswal
examined at Exh. 35 is the PSO, who has registered the complaint and
has produced the extract of the Station Diary at Exh. 38.
9.5 Prosecution Witness No. 8 - Madhuben Gordhanbhai
examined at Exh. 39 is an eyewitness to the incident as per the case of
the prosecution but she has not supported the case of the prosecution and
has been declared hostile and cross examined by the learned APP but
nothing to support the case of prosecution has come on record.
9.6 Prosecution Witness No. 9 Badwantsinh Shivuji Rana
examined at Exh. 45 is the Investigating Officer, who has narrated the
entire procedure undertaken by him during investigation.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/810/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/09/2025
undefined
During the cross-examination by the learned advocate for the
accused, the witness has stated that at the time of the investigation, it has
emerged on record that there are civil litigations pending between the
parties.
10 On minute perusal of the entire evidence of the prosecution, it has
come on record that the complainant had encroached the land belonging
to the Gram Panchayat and the encroachment was removed and the
complainant was not happy that the encroachment was removed. Civil
litigations filed by the complainant are pending before the Civil Court,
Vadodara and no injunction have been given to the complainant. The
complainant has illegally encroached on the land and was given a notice
by the Gram Panchayat to remove the encroachment but she did not
remove the encroachment and the complainant herself has admitted that
she did not have any problem, if the accused did not ask her to remove
the encroachment. There are major contradictions in the deposition of the
witnesses and the complaint and the say of the complainant and as
observed by the learned Trial Court, the complaint has been filed only
because the illegal encroachment by the complainant, was removed by
the Gram Panchayat. The accused Nos. 2 and 4 are the Sarpanch and the
Deputy Sarpanch and the accused Nos. 1 and 3 are the husband of the
accused Nos. 2 and 4 respectively and they too have been roped in by the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/810/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/09/2025
undefined
complainant. There is no cogent and convincing evidence that any caste-
slurs were hurled by the accused and the accused has not clarified as to
who has used which words against her. The caste certificate of the
complainant has merely been produced on record by her but there is no
evidence as to whether the caste certificate produced at Exh. 10 in fact
belongs to the complainant and as to whether she was, in fact, a member
of the scheduled caste as apparently, the Investigating Officer has not
conducted any investigation in this regard.
11 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 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.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/810/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/09/2025
undefined
12 The impugned judgement and order of acquittal passed by
learned Special Judge, Vadodara in Special (Atrocity) Case No. 13 of
2010 on 08-02-2011, is hereby confirmed.
13 Bail bond stands cancelled. Record and proceedings be sent back
to the concerned Trial Court forthwith.
Sd/-
(S. V. PINTO,J)
VVM
