[Cites 10, Cited by 0]

Gujarat High Court

State Of Gujarat vs Mahendra @ Shamji Muljibhai Vaghela on 8 April, 2026

                                                                                                                           NEUTRAL CITATION




                          R/CR.A/1349/2009                                             CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 08/04/2026

                                                                                                                           undefined




                                                                                    Reserved On : 18/03/2026
                                                                                  Pronounced On : 08/04/2026

                                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                                                  R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1349 of 2009

                       ==========================================================
                                                 STATE OF GUJARAT
                                                       Versus
                                     MAHENDRA @ SHAMJI MULJIBHAI VAGHELA & ORS.
                       ==========================================================
                       Appearance:
                       MR. YUVRAJ BRAHMBHATT, APP for the Appellant(s) No. 1
                       MR NR KODEKAR(5020) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3
                       ==========================================================

                          CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SANJEEV J.THAKER


                                                            CAV JUDGMENT

1. Feeling aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment

and order of acquittal dated 27.02.2009, passed by the

learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.1,

Khambhaliya in Case No. 149/2008, for the offences

punishable under Sections 332, 323, 504, 506(2) read with

114 of the Indian Penal Code, and the appellant - State of

Gujarat has preferred this appeal under Section 378 of the

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, "the Code").

2. The prosecution case, as unfolded during the trial

before the lower Court, is that as per the complaint,

Sanjaysinh Bharatsinh Jadeja, serving as a Conductor in the

S.T. Department, lodged an FIR at Sheth Vadala Police

Station. It is alleged that on 06.09.2007, while the

complainant was on duty, and when the bus reached near

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1349/2009 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 08/04/2026

undefined

Samana Village Bus Stand, the accused persons allegedly

obstructed him in discharge of his official duty, caused simple

hurt, abused him, and extended threats to kill him.

Therefore, the complaint was filed against the respondent/s-

accused.

3. After investigation, sufficient prima facie evidence

was found against the accused person/s and therefore charge-

sheet was filed in the competent criminal Court for the

offences as alleged. Since the offence alleged against the

accused person/s was exclusively triable by the Court of

Sessions, the learned Magistrate committed the case to the

Sessions Court where it came to be registered as Case

No.149/2008. The charge was framed against the accused

person/s. The accused pleaded not guilty and came to be

tried.

4. In order to bring home the charge, the prosecution

has examined 7 witnesses and also produced 5 documentary

evidence before the trial Court, which are described in the

impugned judgment.

Oral evidences
Sr.No. Exh.No. Particulars
1. 11 Sanjay Bharatsinh Jadeja
(conductor)
2. 13 Kanaksinh Jayendrasinh

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1349/2009 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 08/04/2026

undefined

Jadeja, (Driver)
3. 15 Danabhai Amrabhai
Vaghela
4. 17 Ravirajsinh Mahipalsinh
Jadeja
5. 16 Khodabhai Ramjibhai
Parmar
6. 19 Vallabhai Kunwarbhai
Lakhtaria
7. 21 Pratapgar Ghangar
Goswami (Police Head
Constable)

Documentary evidences
Sr.No Exh.No. Particulars
1. 12 Original Complaint
2. 16 Panchnama of the scene
of offence
3. 20 Certified true copy of
station diary entry no. 20.
4. 22 Copy of cross complaint.
5. 23 Original MLC Papers of
the complainant,
Sanjaysinh Bharatsinh
Jadeja.

5. After hearing both the parties and after analysis

of evidence adduced by the prosecution, the learned trial

Judge acquitted the accused for the offences for which they

were charged, by holding that the prosecution has failed to

prove the case beyond reasonable doubt.

6. Learned APP for the appellant - State has pointed

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1349/2009 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 08/04/2026

undefined

out the facts of the case and having taken this Court

through both, oral and documentary evidence, recorded before

the learned trial Court, would submit that the learned trial

Court has failed to appreciate the evidence in true sense and

perspective; and that the trial Court has committed error in

acquitting the accused. It is submitted that the learned trial

Court ought not to have given much emphasis to the

contradictions and/or omissions appearing in the evidence and

ought to have given weightage to the dots that connect the

accused with the offence in question. It is submitted that

the learned trial Court has erroneously come to the

conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove its case. It

is also submitted that the learned Judge ought to have seen

that the evidence produced on record is reliable and

believable and it was proved beyond reasonable doubt that

the accused had committed an offence in question. It is,

therefore, submitted that this Court may allow this appeal by

appreciating the evidence led before the learned trial Court.

7. As against that, learned advocate for the

respondent/s would support the impugned judgment passed by

the learned trial Court and has submitted that the learned

trial Court has not committed any error in acquitting the

accused. The trial Court has taken possible view as the

prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1349/2009 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 08/04/2026

undefined

doubt. Therefore, it is prayed to dismiss the present appeal

by confirming the impugned judgment and order passed by

the learned trial Court.

8. In the aforesaid background, considering the oral

as well as documentary evidence on record, independently and

dispassionately and considering the impugned judgment and

order of the trial Court, the following aspects weighed with

the Court:

8.1. It is the case of the prosecution with complaint

provide vide Exh-12, that the complainant and Shri

Kanaksinh Jayendrasinh Jadeja are government servants and

that at the relevant time they were discharging their official

duties. However, no documentary evidence has been produced

to substantiate this fact. If the prosecution had so desired, it

could have produced the waybill of the bus in question, or

the report which, as per the complainant, was submitted to

the Depot Manager Shri Talsaniya regarding the incident.

Similarly, the prosecution could have produced the report of

the Traffic Controller concerning the movement of the said

bus. Documentary proof regarding the presence of the

complainant could also have been produced. However, the

prosecution has not deemed it appropriate to produce any

such documentary evidence.

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1349/2009 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 08/04/2026

undefined

8.2. Upon perusal of the evidence of Prosecution

Witness No. 1, Sanjaysinh Jadeja vide Exh-11, it appears

that when the bus reached village Samana, a commotion

arose among the passengers while boarding and alighting

from the bus. At that time, the witness requested three

passengers who were seated at the rear to come forward,

upon which the said passengers became agitated, started

abusing, and picked up a quarrel with the complainant. It

further transpires that the accused persons extended threats

to the complainant stating that, being members of a

Scheduled Caste, they would falsely implicate him in a case.

The accused also threatened that if the complainant engaged

in any dispute with them, they would involve him in a false

case, and further extended threats to kill the complainant.

8.3. Thus, upon considering the version of the

complainant, the cause of the alleged quarrel as narrated by

him does not appear to be plausible or convincing. It is

difficult to accept that merely upon a conductor asking

passengers seated at the rear to come forward when their

stop had arrived, the passengers would, without any

provocation, become enraged, start abusing the conductor, or

extend threats of falsely implicating him in a case. Such a

version does not appear to be natural or believable in the

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1349/2009 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 08/04/2026

undefined

ordinary course of human conduct.

8.4. In the cross-examination of the complainant, he

has admitted that he came to know the names of the

present accused on the basis of the complaint lodged by

them. The complainant has further admitted that prior to

filing the present complaint against the accused, one of the

accused, namely Mahendrabhai, had already lodged a

complaint against him at the police station.

8.5. The complaint has been produced vide exhibit 12.

It is stated therein that the accused initiated a quarrel on

the ground that the complainant had not issued a ticket.

However, during cross-examination by the defence, the

complainant avoided admitting this fact by stating that he

does not remember whether such a statement was mentioned

in the complaint. Thus, upon reading the complaint, it

appears that the quarrel had arisen on account of the

complainant not issuing tickets to the accused. However, the

complainant has neither disclosed the true cause nor

admitted this fact. It can, therefore, be said that the

complainant has suppressed the material facts underlying the

genesis of the incident.

8.6. Upon perusal of the Cross-FIR at Exhibit 22, it

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1349/2009 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 08/04/2026

undefined

appears that the incident occurred on 6th September 2007.

The complainant therein, Mahendrabhai, lodged a complaint

before the PSI at Sheth Vadala Police Station at about 16:15

hours against the present complainant, Sanjay Singh.

Thereafter, the present complainant lodged a complaint

against the accused at about 22:00 hours on the same day.

Thus, from the timeline, it is evident that the complaint filed

by accused Mahendrabhai is prior in point of time. This

lends support to the defence contention that the present

complaint is a subsequent and retaliatory one, possibly filed

to counter the earlier complaint. Therefore, it cannot be said

that the present accused were the initial aggressors.

8.7. While explaining the delay in lodging complaint it

has been stated by the complainant that he had reached the

police station at around 7:30 p.m. to lodge the complaint.

However, PW-6, PSO Shri V.K. Lakhtariya examined at Exh.

19, in his cross-examination, has stated that when the

complainant approached him, the complaint was recorded

immediately without any delay. Further, the Station Diary

Entry at Exhibit-20 reflects that the offence came to be

registered at 22:00 hours on the basis of the complaint of

Sanjay Singh. This clearly indicates that the complainant had

approached the police station at around 22:00 hours. Thus,

despite having lodged the complaint at that time, the

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1349/2009 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 08/04/2026

undefined

complainant falsely stated that he had reached the police

station at 7:30 p.m. and had to wait due to the absence of

the PSI.

8.8. The material aspect emerging from the complaint

at Exh-12 and the overall evidence of the complainant,

Sanjaysinh, is that he has mentioned only one witness,

namely the driver Kanaksinh Jayendrasinh Jadeja, in the

FIR, while stating that the remaining witnesses would be

those revealed during investigation. This has been rightly

questioned by the defence, contending that such omission

enables the complainant to subsequently introduce witnesses

of his choice. In this regard, the evidence of prosecution

witness Raviraj Singh Mahipatsinh Jadeja assumes

significance, as he has admitted in his cross-examination that

both the complainant and the said driver Kanaksinh

Jayendrasinh Jadeja belong to his village and caste, and he

is well acquainted with them. In such circumstances, had this

witness actually been present on the bus at the time of the

incident, his name would have found place in FIR.

8.9. It has come on record that the witness Raviraj

Singh is acquainted with the complainant SanjaySinh and the

driver Kanaksinh Jayendrasinh Jadeja. The same fact has

also been stated by the driver in his examination-in-chief,

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1349/2009 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 08/04/2026

undefined

wherein he has deposed that persons from his village, namely

Raviraj Singh and Khodabai, were present in the bus at the

time of the incident. Further, as per the complainant, the

said driver Kanaksinh Jayendrasinh Jadeja remained present

beside him while the complaint was being recorded. In such

circumstances, a serious question arises as to why the names

of these material witnesses, Raviraj Singh and Khodabai,

were not mentioned in the FIR.

8.10. The complainant has stated that at the

relevant time there were about 25 to 30 passengers in the

bus, including daily up-down students known to him.

However, he has also deposed, by way of contradiction, that

no person known to him was present in the bus at that

time. This version appears to be false and unreliable. In view

of his own admission that such a number of daily commuting

students were present and considering that he had been

serving on the same route for about one and a half years, it

is reasonable to infer that he would have been acquainted

with them by name. Thus, his statement that no known

persons were present in the bus is clearly inconsistent and

not worthy of reliance.

8.11. Thus, students can be considered independent

witnesses to the incident. However, no such student has been

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1349/2009 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 08/04/2026

undefined

named in the complaint. Despite the availability of such

independent witnesses, neither have their names been

disclosed in the FIR nor have they been examined during the

investigation. No explanation has been offered by the

prosecution for such non-examination, which creates a serious

doubt regarding the prosecution case.

8.12. PW-2, Kanaksinh Jayendrasinh Jadeja (Exh. 13),

the driver of the bus had deposed that at about 12:00 noon,

when the bus reached Samana village and passengers were

boarding and alighting, a commotion took place, and he saw

a quarrel and scuffle between the complainant and the

accused. He intervened and separated them and further

stated that the accused abused and threatened to implicate

the complainant in an Atrocity case. However, this witness

appears to have deposed only in a manner favourable to the

complainant, as his evidence does not disclose the cause of

the quarrel or the reason for the alleged abuses by the

accused. Furthermore, this witness has not stated that

accused Nos. 2 and 3, who are women, had abused the

complainant. In contrast, the complainant has specifically

alleged that all three accused had abused him. This material

omission creates a contradiction between the evidence of the

complainant and that of the witness.

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1349/2009 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 08/04/2026

undefined

8.13. Further, PW-6, PSO Lakhtariya (Exh. 19), has

recorded the complaint on the basis of which the offence

came to be registered against the present accused, and

thereafter the investigation was carried out by PW-7, Head

Constable Goswami (Exh. 21), culminating in the filing of the

charge sheet. The evidence of these witnesses is merely

formal and official in nature. In the circumstances where the

substantive evidence of the complainant and other witnesses

is found to be unreliable and not worthy of credence, the

procedural evidence of these police officials cannot, in itself,

be treated as sufficient to establish the guilt of the accused.

8.14 The trial Court, while considering the evidences in

detail, has observed that the prosecution has failed to prove

the case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. While

discussing the evidence in detail, the trial court has found

that the only allegation against the accused is of speaking

indecent words against the caste of the complainant. The

trial Court has gone into the evidence in detail and has

come to the conclusion that the accused are not guilty of the

alleged offence.

9. Further, learned APP is not in a position to show

any evidence to take a contrary view in the matter or that

the approach of the Court below is vitiated by some manifest

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1349/2009 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 08/04/2026

undefined

illegality or that the decision is perverse or that the Court

below has ignored the material evidence on record. In above

view of the matter, this Court is of the considered opinion

that the Court below was completely justified in passing

impugned judgment and order.

10. Considering the impugned judgment, the trial

Court has recorded that there was no direct evidence

connecting the accused with the incident and there are

contradictions in the depositions of the prosecution witnesses.

In absence of the direct evidence, it cannot be proved that

the accused are involved in the offence. Further, the motive

of the accused behind the incident is not established. The

trial Court has rightly considered all the evidence on record

and passed the impugned judgment. The trial Court has

rightly evaluated the facts and the evidence on record.

11. It is also a settled legal position that in acquittal

appeal, the appellate court is not required to re-write the

judgment or to give fresh reasoning, when the reasons

assigned by the Court below are found to be just and proper.

Such principle is down by the Apex Court in the case of

State of Karnataka Vs. Hemareddy, reported in AIR 1981 SC

1417 wherein it is held as under:

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1349/2009 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 08/04/2026

undefined

"... This court has observed in Girija Nandini Devi V. Bigendra Nandini Chaudhary (1967)1 SCR 93: (AIR 1967 SC 1124) that it is not the duty of the appellate court when it agrees with the view of the trial court on the evidence to repeat the narration of the evidence or to reiterate the reasons given by the trial court expression of general agreement with the reasons given by the Court the decision of which is under appeal, will ordinarily suffice."

12. Thus, in case the appellate court agrees with the

reasons and the opinion given by the lower court, then the

discussion of evidence at length is not necessary.

13. In the case of Ram Kumar v. State of Haryana,

reported in AIR 1995 SC 280, Supreme Court has held as

under:

"The powers of the High Court in an appeal from order of acquittal to reassess the evidence and reach its own conclusions under Sections 378 and 379,

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1349/2009 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 08/04/2026

undefined

Cr.P.C. are as extensive as in any appeal against the order of conviction.

But as a rule of prudence, it is desirable that the High Court should give proper weight and consideration to the view of the Trial Court with regard to the credibility of the witness, the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused, the right of the accused to the benefit of any doubt and the slowness of appellate Court in justifying a finding of fact arrived at by a Judge who had the advantage of seeing the witness. It is settled law that if the main grounds on which the lower Court has based its order acquitting the accused are reasonable and plausible,

and the same cannot entirely and

effectively be dislodged or demolished,

the High Court should not disturb the

order of acquittal."

14. As observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the

case of Rajesh Singh & Others vs. State of Uttar Pradesh

reported in (2011) 11 SCC 444 and in the case of

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1349/2009 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 08/04/2026

undefined

Bhaiyamiyan Alias Jardar Khan and Another vs. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in (2011) 6 SCC 394, while dealing with the judgment of acquittal, unless reasoning by the trial

Court is found to be perverse, the acquittal cannot be upset.

It is further observed that High Court's interference in such

appeal in somewhat circumscribed and if the view taken by

the trial Court is possible on the evidence, the High Court

should stay its hands and not interfere in the matter in the

belief that if it had been the trial Court, it might have

taken a different view.

15. In the case of Chandrappa v. State of

Karnataka, reported in (2007) 4 SCC 415, the Hon'ble

Apex Court has observed as under:

"42. From the above decisions, in our considered view, the following general principles regarding powers of the appellate 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

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1349/2009 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 08/04/2026

undefined

the order of acquittal is founded. (2) The Criminal Procedure Code, 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 emphasise 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.

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1349/2009 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 08/04/2026

undefined

(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 is 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."

16. The Hon'ble Apex Court, in a recent decision, in

the case of Constable 907 Surendra Singh and Another V/s

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1349/2009 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 08/04/2026

undefined

State of Uttarakhand reported in (2025) 5 SCC 433, has held in paragraph 24 as under:

"24. It could thus be seen that it is a settled legal position that the interference with the finding of acquittal recorded by the learned trial Judge would be warranted by the High Court only if the judgment of acquittal suffers from patent perversity; that the same is based on a misreading/omission to consider material evidence on record; and that no two reasonable views are possible and only the view consistent with the guilt of the accused is possible from the evidence available on record."

17. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances

of the case and law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court

while considering the scope of appeal under Section 378 of

the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 no case is made out to

interfere with the impugned judgment and order of acquittal.

18. In view of above facts and circumstances of the

case, on my careful re-appreciation of the entire evidence, I

found that there is no infirmity or irregularity in the

findings of fact recorded by learned trial Court and under

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1349/2009 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 08/04/2026

undefined