[Cites 15, Cited by 0]
Gujarat High Court
Solanki Bharatbhai Melabhai vs State Of Gujarat on 24 April, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/192/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 24/04/2026
undefined
Reserved On : 07/04/2026
Pronounced On : 24/04/2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL (AGAINST ACQUITTAL) NO. 192 of 2025
==========================================================
SOLANKI BHARATBHAI MELABHAI
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
BHISHMA A. RAWAL(12270) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR 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 20.06.2024, passed by
th
the learned Special Judge and 4 Additional Sessions Court,
Visnagar, in Special Atrocity Case No.2 of 2019, for the
offences punishable under Sections 323, 504, 506(1) of the
Indian Penal Code and Sections 3(1)(R)(S), 3(2)(5-A) of the
Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act and Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act, the
appellant has preferred this appeal under Section 378 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, "the Code").
2. The case of the appellant unfolded during the trial
before the lower Court, is that the Appellant meets his daily
life expenses by driving a cab car bearing registration
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/192/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 24/04/2026
undefined
number GJ-02-W-144, ferrying passengers between Kheralu
and Visnagar. On 22.01.2019 around 06:15 PM while waiting
for the passengers the appellant drove his car in the line at
the taxi stand where the accused-respondent No. 2 drove his
car in front of the appellant's car. When the appellant
requested the accused that the passengers should board in
the appellant's car first at the taxi stand as the appellant
was in line, the accused became furious and started abusing
and quarrelling with the appellant. The accused-respondent
No. 2 started hitting the appellant in the abdomen and
chest. The accused-respondent No. 2 knew that the appellant
belongs to the Scheduled Caste, the accused-respondent No. 2
made a remark that "you are supposed to clean the streets
and not to drive the car" and also uttered casteist slurs
against the appellant's caste and abused the appellant
verbally and physically, 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 Special
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/192/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 24/04/2026
undefined
(Atrocity) Case No.2 of 2019. 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 Evidence
No. Witness / Person Providing Testimony Exhibit
1 Testimony of Doctor Himaben Babubhai Patel 07
2 Testimony of Doctor Bhargav Alkeshkumar Patel 10
Testimony of Panch Witness (Dineshbhai
3 Bhakhabhai Bhangi) regarding the Panchnama 14
of the scene of the offence
Testimony of Second Panch Witness (Khalid
Panchnama of the scene of the offence
Testimony of Panch Witness (Jitubhai Kantibhai
5 Patel) regarding the Panchnama of the physical 17
condition of the accused
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/192/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 24/04/2026
undefined
No. Witness / Person Providing Testimony Exhibit
Testimony of Second Panch Witness (Arvindgiri
6 Devgiri Bawa) regarding the Panchnama of the 19
physical condition of the accused
Testimony of Witness, Ushaben Bharatbhai
Solanki
8 Testimony of Witness, Nagarji Sonaji Thakor 22
Testimony of Complainant, Bharatbhai Melabhai
Solanki
Testimony of P.I. (Police Inspector), Sunilbhai
Virsangbhai Chaudhary
Testimony of Police Witness, Kamleshbhai
Nagarjibhai Rabari
12 Testimony of D.C.P., Bhaktiba Ketanbhai Thaker 35
Testimony of Police Superintendent,
Jayendrasinh Rajendrasinh Vaghela
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/192/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 24/04/2026
undefined
Documentary Evidence
No. Description of Document Exhibit
O.P.D. Case Papers (Page 06) and
Sonography report, CT Scan, and ECG
Transfer chit from Kheralu C.H.C.
(Community Health Centre)
Panchnama of the physical condition of the
accused
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/192/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 24/04/2026
undefined
No. Description of Document Exhibit
investigation of the crime
5. After hearing learned advocate for the appellant
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 advocate for the appellant 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
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/192/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 24/04/2026
undefined
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 APP for the respondent
State 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 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. The complaint, produced at Exhibit 24, has been filed
by the complainant wherein it is the case of the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/192/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 24/04/2026
undefined
complainant that on 22.01.2019, while he was operating
his passenger vehicle on the Kheralu-Visnagar route, upon
his vehicle number being called, he placed his vehicle in
the designated queue. At that juncture, the accused also
brought his vehicle into the passenger line and positioned
it ahead of the complainant's vehicle. The complainant
thereupon objected, stating that his number had already
been called. Upon such objection, the accused became
enraged and assaulted the complainant by delivering fist
and kick blows on his abdomen and head. It is further
alleged that the accused used abusive language and
extended threats to kill the complainant. It is further the
case of the complainant that, despite being aware that the
complainant belongs to a Scheduled Caste, the accused
intentionally insulted and humiliated him in public view
by uttering caste-based derogatory remarks, thereby
committing the alleged offence. Hence, the complainant
lodged the present complaint on 23.01.2019 in respect of
the aforesaid incident.
8.2. The prosecution has examined PW-3, Dineshbhai, at
Exhibit 14, and PW-4, Khalid Riyaz Mohammad Arab, at
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/192/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 24/04/2026
undefined
Exhibit 16, as panch witnesses to the panchnama of the
scene of offence. However, both these witnesses have not
supported the case of the prosecution and have been
treated as hostile panch witnesses by the prosecution.
8.3. The prosecution has examined panch witness Jitubhai
Patel (PW-5) at Exhibit 17 and panch witness Arvindgiri
Bava (PW-6) at Exhibit 19 in connection with the
panchnama of the physical condition of the accused.
However, both these panch witnesses have not supported
the contents of the panchnama of the physical condition of
the accused drawn at Exhibit 18. Consequently, they have
been declared hostile panch witnesses by the prosecution.
8.4. The prosecution has examined PW-1, Dr. Himaben
Babubhai Patel, at Exhibit 7. She has deposed that on
22.01.2019, while on duty, she examined and treated the
complainant, who had given a history of assault by the
accused pursuant to a quarrel over loading of passengers.
On examination, she found a simple, fresh abrasion
measuring about 2 cm × 0.5 cm on the right wrist, and
the complainant also complained of chest pain. The injury
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/192/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 24/04/2026
undefined
was supposed to be caused by a hard and blunt object. In
cross-examination, the doctor admitted that the
complainant had come without police requisition, and that
the medical history does not record any caste-based abuse
or assault on the abdomen. She further admitted that the
complaint of chest pain could be imaginary.
8.5. The prosecution has examined PW-2, Dr. Bhargav
Alkeshkumar Patel, at Exhibit 10. He has deposed that
on 22.01.2019, the complainant was brought for treatment
with a history of assault by the accused. On examination,
no external injuries were found. However, considering the
complaint of chest pain, CT scan and sonography were
conducted, which were normal. The complainant was
admitted on 22.01.2019 and discharged on 28.01.2019. As
per the medical certificate (Exh.11) and case papers
(Exh.12), the complaint of pain could be due to fist blows.
In cross-examination, the doctor admitted that the
certificate does not mention accompanying persons or
recovery period, and that the complaint of chest pain
could be subjective.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/192/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 24/04/2026
undefined
8.6. Upon consideration of the depositions of both the
medical officers, it appears that the alleged injuries could
be self-inflicted in nature. The complaint of chest pain is
found to be subjective. Further, in light of the testimony
of PW 2, no external injury was found on the
complainant.
8.7. The prosecution has examined PW-7, Ushaben
Bharatbhai Solanki, at Exhibit 21, who is the wife of the
complainant. She has deposed that upon returning home,
her husband informed her about a quarrel with the
accused regarding the vehicle. She accompanied him to
the hospital in a rickshaw; initially, they went to Kheralu
Civil Hospital and thereafter he was referred to Vadnagar
Civil Hospital for further treatment, where the complaint
came to be lodged. Her statement was recorded by the
police after two days, i.e., on 24.01.2019. In cross-
examination, she has admitted that her police statement
does not mention that the accused had caught hold of her
husband by the neck and assaulted him. She has further
admitted that she is not an eyewitness to the incident,
that she is illiterate, and that the contents of her
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/192/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 24/04/2026
undefined
statement were written by the police. She also admitted
that both her husband and the accused are known to her,
being residents of the same place and engaged in driving
vehicles. Since this witness is not an eyewitness to the
incident, her testimony cannot be relied upon to hold that
the accused had assaulted the complainant or had uttered
caste-based insulting remarks.
8.8. The prosecution has examined PW-8, Nagarji Sonaji
Thakor, at Exhibit 22. He has deposed that while he was
proceeding towards the bus stand from the market, the
police obtained his signature after inquiring about his
name. He has categorically stated that no such incident
took place in his presence wherein the complainant was
subjected to caste-based abuse or threats. He has further
stated that no complaint was read over to him by the
police. As this witness has not supported the case of the
prosecution, he has been declared hostile.
8.9. The prosecution has examined PW-9, the complainant
Bharatbhai Solanki, at Exhibit 23. He has deposed that
he is engaged in operating a passenger vehicle on the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/192/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 24/04/2026
undefined
Kheralu-Visnagar route and is educated up to 12th
standard. He has stated that on 22.01.2019, when his
turn came to load passengers and he had placed his
vehicle in the queue, the accused brought his vehicle
ahead of his. Upon objection, the accused allegedly abused
him with caste-based remarks, assaulted him, and
extended threats to kill him. He has further stated that
other drivers intervened and rescued him, including
Nagarji Sonaji Thakor. Thereafter, he went home and
subsequently went to Kheralu Civil Hospital and later
lodged the complaint at Vadnagar Civil Hospital on
23.01.2019. His further statement was recorded on
24.01.2019. In cross-examination, he has admitted that he
did not go to the police station immediately after the
incident and instead went home by driving his vehicle
himself. He has further admitted that despite having a
mobile phone, he did not inform the police. He has also
admitted that the place of incident is a busy public place
with movement of vehicles and people, and that he did
not go to the hospital immediately but first went home.
8.10. The prosecution has examined the Police Inspector,
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/192/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 24/04/2026
undefined
Sunilbhai Virsinghbhai Chaudhary, at Exhibit 25, before
whom the complaint came to be lodged. In cross-
examination, the witness admitted that if the complainant
had stated before him that the accused had uttered caste-
based abusive words, the same would have been recorded
by him, and it is not possible that such a fact was stated
but not recorded.
8.11. The prosecution has examined the Investigating
Officer, Dy.S.P. Jayendrasinh Vaghela, at Exhibit 37, who
conducted the investigation and filed the charge sheet. In
cross-examination, he admitted that during the course of
investigation, no reference to cast based abusive words
was found in the complaint or in the supplementary
statement of the complainant.
8.12. The prosecution has examined PW-12, CPI Bhaktiba
Ketanbhai Thaker, at Exhibit 35. In cross-examination, the
witness has admitted that the complainant, in his
statement, has not specified the exact caste-based words
allegedly uttered by the accused.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/192/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 24/04/2026
undefined
8.13. The case of the complainant does not find
corroboration from any independent witness. Furthermore,
even the police witnesses, including the officer who
recorded the complaint and the Investigating Officer, do
not support the allegation that the accused had uttered
any specific caste-based abusive or insulting words.
8.14. Further, the accused is charged with offences
punishable under Sections 504 and 506(1) of the IPC. The
case of the prosecution in this regard rests upon the
testimony of the complainant and other witnesses.
However, there is no evidence of any independent
eyewitness to establish that, at the time of the incident,
the accused had extended any threat, used abusive
language, or insulted the complainant. Moreover, even
from the evidence of the complainant himself, it is not
proved that the accused had uttered any abusive or caste-
based insulting words.
8.15. Therefore, the prosecution has not proved the case
against the accused for the offence as alleged. Moreover, as
per the observations made by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/192/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 24/04/2026
undefined
case of Sajan Sakhariya Vs. State of Kerala and others
reported in AIR 2024 SC 4557, every insult or intimidation
would not amount to an offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, 1989, unless such insult or intimidation is
started at a victim because he is a member of a particular
Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes. Therefore, from the
allegations made in the complaint, the prosecution has not
proved that the accused is guilty of an offence under the
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, 1989.
8.16. 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 advocate 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
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/192/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 24/04/2026
undefined
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, 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/192/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 24/04/2026
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/192/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 24/04/2026
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/192/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 24/04/2026
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/192/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 24/04/2026
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/192/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 24/04/2026
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. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances
of the case and law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/192/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 24/04/2026
undefined
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.
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
the circumstances, the learned trial Court has rightly
acquitted the respondent/s - accused for the elaborate reasons
stated in the impugned judgment and I also endorse the
view/finding of the learned trial Court leading to the
acquittal.
18. In view of the above and for the reasons stated
above, the present Criminal Appeal fails to prove its case
and the same deserves to be dismissed and is dismissed at
the admission stage, accordingly. Record & Proceedings be
remitted to the concerned trial Court forthwith.
Sd/-
(SANJEEV J.THAKER,J)
URIL RANA
