[Cites 10, Cited by 0]

Gujarat High Court

State Of Gujarat vs Rajesh @ Gopi Dineshbhai @ Habsi ... on 8 April, 2026

                                                                                                                         NEUTRAL CITATION




                          R/CR.A/1615/2012                                            CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 08/04/2026

                                                                                                                         undefined




                                                                                    Reserved On : 23/03/2026
                                                                                  Pronounced On : 08/04/2026

                                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                                              R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1615 of 2012

                       ==========================================================
                                                 STATE OF GUJARAT
                                                       Versus
                                    RAJESH @ GOPI DINESHBHAI @ HABSI CHAUDHARY
                       ==========================================================
                       Appearance:
                       MR. YUVRAJ BRAHMBHATT,APP for the Appellant(s) No. 1
                       RULE SERVED for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1
                       ==========================================================

                          CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SANJEEV J.THAKER


                                                              CAV JUDGMENT

1. Feeling aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the

judgment and order of acquittal dated 30.06.2012, passed by

the learned 8 th Additional District and Sessions Judge,

Vadodara in Sessions Case No. 198/2011, for the offences

punishable under Sections 324 and 504 of the Indian Penal

Code and Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act, 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 the complainant lodged a

complaint alleging that due to prior enmity and dispute, the

accused came to the place of residence of the complainant on

08.06.2009 at about 6:00 p.m., abused and threatened the

complainant and his family members, and attempted to

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1615/2012 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 08/04/2026

undefined

assault the complainant with a sword. During the incident,

the complainant sustained injuries on his head and his minor

brother Dinesh sustained injuries on his right hand while

trying to prevent the assault. Both injured were taken for

medical treatment. Therefore, the complaint was lodged

against the respondent-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. 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

documentary evidence before the Trial Court, which are

described in the impugned judgment as under:

Oral Evidences

Sr.No. Exh.No. Particulars

1. 15 Manoj Shankarbhai Chaudhary

2. 16 Kalidas Shankarbhai Chaudhary

3. 18 Dinesh alis Chako Shankarbhai

Chaudhary

4. 19 Gaganbhai Shankarbhai Chaudhary

5. 20 Sujit Bhupatbhai

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1615/2012 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 08/04/2026

undefined

6. 21 Girish Rajnikant Patel

Documentary evidences

Sr.No. Exh.No. Particulars

1. 12 Written complaint submitted to

Police Station for registration of

offence.

2. 13 List of documents to be checked.

3. 14 Medical examination of the

accused.

4. 16 Report of the incident in question.

5. 23 Panchanama of the seizure of the

weapon.

6. 27 Treatment Certificate of the

complainant.

7. 31 Copy of hospital vardhi report.

8. 32 Copy of the panchanama of the

scene of offence.

9. 33 Copy of Resolution.

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

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1615/2012 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 08/04/2026

undefined

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 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. Rule served. None appears on behalf of the

respondent/s.

8. In the aforesaid background, considering the oral

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1615/2012 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 08/04/2026

undefined

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 The prosecution has mainly relied on the

complaint that has been filed by the complainant, which is

produced vide Exh-16, as per the said complaint he has

stated that on 08.06.2009, at around 6:30 p.m., when he was

present, there were some quarrel with Kalaben, and at that

time of the said fight, his brothers Manoj and Gagan were

present their, and they tried to intervene and stop the fight,

and at that time Rajesh Dineshbhai, the accused herein came

with a sword, and started shouting and abusing. The

complainant and his brothers in the scuffle wherein, he tried

to assault the complainant with the sword in his hands, and

at that time the brother of the complainant Chako alias

Dineshbhai intervenes, and the sword had hit on the head of

the complainant, and also on the left hand's finger of his

brother Chako, and even Sheetal, who happened to be the

sister of the accused was wounded and taken in an

ambulance.

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1615/2012 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 08/04/2026

undefined

8.2 The prosecution has examined the brother of the

complainant Manojbhai Chaudhary as PW-1, vide Exhibit-15,

in his deposition he has stated that the quarrel between the

accused and the complainant was because of fetching the

water and about the said incident there were quarrels

between the family members of the complainant and the

accused. He has stated that he was not present at the time

when the incident had taken place, and he was at his

village, and had not gone to the hospital. He could not

identify the Muddamal sword. Thus, PW-1 has turned hostile

and has not supported the case of the prosecution.

8.3 The prosecution has thereafter examined the

complainant Kalidas Chaudhary vide Exhibit-16 as PW-2. He

has stated that at the time of incident he and his brothers

were present at his residence. The said deposition is contrary

to the deposition of PW-1 i.e. Manojbhai Chaudhary, who is

the brother of the complainant, he has stated that he was

not present at the time of incident and was at his village.

8.4 The other brother of the complainant Dinesh alias

Chako, has been examined as PW-3, vide Exh-18, in his

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1615/2012 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 08/04/2026

undefined

deposition he has stated that he and his brother i.e.

complainant were the only persons who were present at the

time of the incident. The complainant in his deposition states

that all his brothers were present at the time of incident

and even in the complaint he has stated the said fact, but

the present witness Dinesh, who the complainant states to

have been injured on his hand does not state that all the

brothers were present at the time of incident. The said

witness also states that Dinesh Habsi i.e. the father of the

accused was present at the time of incident, but the said

fact is contrary to what has been stated by the complainant

in his deposition. The complainant in his complaint, and

deposition does not state that Dinesh Habsi i.e. the father of

Rajesh was present at the time of incident and had abused

the complainant.

8.5 The said witness also states that after the

complainant was injured he was taken to the hospital by his

wife. The complainant also in his deposition states that he

was taken to the hospital by his wife in a rickshaw, but the

said fact is contrary to the oral evidence of the Chief

Medical Officer, who has been examined as PW-9, vide Exh-

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1615/2012 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 08/04/2026

undefined

8.6 The said witness Dinesh, whom the complainant

states to have been injured does not state that he himself

was also injured during the said incident, and states that his

brother i.e. the complainant was hit on the head and on the

last finger of the left hand. Therefore, there is a

contradiction in his oral evidence and in his deposition of

complainant.

8.7 The other brother of the complainant Gagan

Chaudhary has been examined as PW-4, vide Exh-19, he has

stated that he was not present at the time of incident, but

in his deposition he also states that Dinesh Habsi and

Hitesh Gopi were present at the time of incident. His

deposition is also contrary to the deposition of the

complainant, wherein the complainant states that all the

brothers were present at the time of incident, and does not

give the name of Dinesh Habsi to be present at the time of

incident, and the present witness PW-4 states that he was

not present at the time of the incident, and he states that

Dinesh Habsi was present at the time of the incident.

Therefore, there is a contradiction in his deposition and of

the complainant.

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1615/2012 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 08/04/2026

undefined

8.8 The prosecution has examined, and has tried to

place on record an independent witness, Sujit Bhupatbhai

vide Exh-20, as PW-5, as an independent witness he does not

support the case of the prosecution and has turned hostile.

He states that he has friendly relation with the accused.

8.9 The prosecution has thereafter examined Girish R.

Patel as an independent witness vide Exh-21, as PW-6. He

has turned hostile and has not supported the case of the

prosecution.

8.10 The panchnama of recovery of weapons has been

produced vide Exh-23, and the panch witness Sunil Sonwane

has been examined as PW-7 vide Exh-22, and Ramnabhai

Ishwarbhai has been examined as PW-8, vide Exh-24. Both

have turned hostile and have not supported the case of the

prosecution.

8.11 The Chief Medical Officer of S.S.G. Hospital,

Vadodara, Dr. Jayeshbhai Prajapati has been examined as

PW-9, vide Exh-26. In his deposition he states that Prakash

Shankarbhai Chaudhary had brought the complainant for

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1615/2012 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 08/04/2026

undefined

treatment at 18:30 hours. The prosecution has not examined

Prakash Chaudhary. The said fact is also contrary to what

has been stated by the complainant, and the witnesses of the

complainant who states that the complainant was brought to

the clinic of the doctor by the wife of the complainant. The

wife of the complainant has also not been examined by the

prosecution. If the oral evidence of the said witness is taken

into consideration, though the incident is alleged to have

occured on 08.05.2009. The said witness i.e. the doctor, has

stated that the complainant had given a history of an assault

dated 10.05.2009, and the complainant had not given him

history of any assault on 08.05.2009. The medical certificate

is produced vide Exh-27, dated 10.05.2009. The same also

states of assault at 06.00pm on 10.05.2009.

8.12 The Head Constable i.e. Karshan Mangalbhai, who

had taken the complaint vide Exh-16 has been examined vide

Exh-28 as PW-10. The I.O. Devshankar R. Dhamal has been

examined vide Exh-30 as PW-11.

8.13 The Sessions Court has taken into consideration

the fact that though the complainant states that Dinesh alias

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1615/2012 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 08/04/2026

undefined

Chaka was injured during the said incident, he himself has

come forward and not stated the said fact. If the complaint

of the complainant is taken into consideration which is

produced vide Exh-16, the complainant in his complaint has

stated that at the time of quarrel the complainant, Manoj,

Gagan and Chaka were present, and the fight was because of

fetching the water and also for payment of tax, the said

facts have not been incorporated in the complaint. If the

evidence is taken into consideration, it also transpires that

the complainant is an accused in an offence under Section

302 which has been registered at the time of alleged offence.

8.14 The prosecution has also not been able to prove

that the accused have committed an offence under Sections

324, 504 of the IPC. In view of the fact of the history that

was given by the complainant to the doctor states about

10.05.2009, and there is no complaint with respect to any

offence on 10.05.2009.

8.15 There are a lot of contradictions in the fact that

all the brothers of the complainant were not present at the

time of incident, and also the father of the accused was not

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1615/2012 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 08/04/2026

undefined

present, as the complainant himself states that all his

brothers were present, and the father of the accused was not

present, and the brothers of the complainant state that they

were not present at the time of incident, and also the father

of the accused Dinesh Habsi was not present at the time of

incident in view of the same contradiction.

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

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, I am 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

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1615/2012 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 08/04/2026

undefined

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:

"... 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,

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1615/2012 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 08/04/2026

undefined

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, 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/1615/2012 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 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

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1615/2012 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 08/04/2026

undefined

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.

(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

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1615/2012 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 08/04/2026

undefined

by the trial court."

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

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

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."

16. 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.

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1615/2012 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 08/04/2026

undefined

17. 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