[Cites 16, Cited by 0]

Gujarat High Court

State Of Gujarat vs Karsan Bhimabhai Gohil on 29 April, 2026

                                                                                                                    NEUTRAL CITATION




                          R/CR.A/1532/2009                                        CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 29/04/2026

                                                                                                                     undefined




                                                                              Reserved On   : 15/04/2026
                                                                              Pronounced On : 29/04/2026

                                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                                              R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1532 of 2009


                       FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:


                       HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SANJEEV J.THAKER
                       ==========================================================

                                    Approved for Reporting                        Yes            No

                       ==========================================================
                                                      STATE OF GUJARAT
                                                            Versus
                                                 KARSAN BHIMABHAI GOHIL & ORS.
                       ==========================================================
                       Appearance:
                       MS SHRUTI PATHAK, APP for the Appellant(s) No. 1
                       HCLS COMMITTEE(4998) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1
                       MR. JAY G THAKER(9944) 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 30.05.2009, passed by

the learned Additional Sessions Judge, in Sessions Case

No.30 of 2008, for the offences punishable under Sections

323, 325, 504, 506(2) and 114 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").

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1532/2009 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 29/04/2026

undefined

2. The prosecution case as unfolded during the trial

before the lower Court is that on 13.03.2007 at about 12:00

hours, near Khandeka Dam, the accused, by making unlawful

assembly and in collusion with each other, due to land

issues, exchanged hot words with the complainant, assaulted

him with iron pipe and wooden stick, fractured on the hands

and legs, threatened him to kill him and abused on his caste

and thereby committed an offence as alleged. 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. 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 Sessions Case No.30 of 2008. The charge

was framed against the accused person/s. The accused

pleaded not guilty and came to be tried.

4.1 In order to bring home the charge, the prosecution

has examined 11 witnesses before the trial Court, which are

described in the impugned judgment, which are as under :

                                Sr.                        Particulars                             Exh.







                                                                                                                    NEUTRAL CITATION




                          R/CR.A/1532/2009                                       CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 29/04/2026

                                                                                                                    undefined




                                No.                                                                   No.

























                       4.2               The      prosecution     has        produced     7     documentary

evidence before the trial Court, which are described in the impugned judgment, which are as under :

                                 Sr.                         Particulars                             Exh.

                                 No.                                                                  No.

















                                                                                                                        NEUTRAL CITATION




                          R/CR.A/1532/2009                                           CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 29/04/2026

                                                                                                                        undefined






                                  7.   Injury Certificate                                               44, 45

                                                                                                        & 46

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 the

charge was framed, 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

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1532/2009 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 29/04/2026

undefined

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

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 prosecution has mainly relied on the

complaint, which is produced vide Exh.23, wherein the

complainant - Abdul Ibrahim Siddiq stated that on

13.03.2007 at 11.00 a.m., when he, along with his brother

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1532/2009 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 29/04/2026

undefined

Osman, were going towards their field at that time, son of

Bhimabhai Jetha, whose name he did not know, along with

him, there was a lady, whom also he did not know, and

other two unknown persons were there. At that time, all the

aforesaid four people had come towards the complainant and

his brother - Osman and the aforesaid unknown four persons

had threatened the complainant and his brother as to why

they had come at the field as the said field belongs to them

and why they should come to the said field; at that time,

the complainant and his brother informed that the said field

belongs to them and that they will come over there; and that

thereafter the aforesaid unknown four people got excited and

started abusing the complainant, to which, the complainant

stopped them from abusing, but at that moment, the

complainant was assaulted with iron tommy and the wooden stick (a thick wooden stick) on his left hand wrist, on the

left hand side of his head, right hand fist and on left leg. At

that time, his brother - Osman intervened and thereafter the

aforesaid four persons gave threats to his life. Thereafter, the

complainant was sent to the hospital for treatment and the

complaint was filed when the complainant was in the

hospital.

8.2 The complainant - Abdul Ibrahim Siddiq has been

examined as P.W.3, vide Exh.15, wherein he states that on

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1532/2009 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 29/04/2026

undefined

the day of the incident, he, along with his brother - Osman,

had gone to his field and over there, accused No.2 -

Rameshbhai Bhurabhai Karia, along with Lakhubhai

Bhimabhai, was present and there was one another lady, who

is a wife of Lakhubhai Bhimabhai, were there; and that they

were putting fence on the said property; and that the

complainant asked them as to why they were placing fence,

at that time, the aforesaid Rameshbhai Bhurabhai Karia

(accused No.2) and Lakhubhai Bhimabhai and that unknown

lady, who is a wife of Lakhubhai Bhimabhai, had stated that

the complainant that he had got to do nothing with the said

field and so saying, they started assaulting the complainant.

Accused No.2 - Rameshbhai Bhurabhai Karia had assaulted

the complainant with an iron pipe on the left hand and he

also assaulted with a stick on the right hand and left leg. Lakhubhai Bhimabhai had assaulted the complainant on the

shoulder. At that time, the brother of the complainant viz.,

Osman intervened and accused No.2 had threatened the

complainant's life. The fact remains that the name of

Lakhubhai Bhimabhai is not stated in the complaint and in

the complaint, the complainant talks about being assaulted

with iron tommy and wooden log. In the deposition before

the Court, he states that accused No.2 had assaulted him

with a pipe and stick. Therefore, there is clear contradictions

in the statement given by the complainant at the time of

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1532/2009 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 29/04/2026

undefined

filing the complaint and deposition before the Court with

respect to the weapon that was allegedly used at the time of

the offence.

Moreover, in the complaint, the complainant states

that he was not knowing as to who the said persons were

and who had assaulted him; and that who were the four

persons who had assaulted him, but in the deposition before

the Court, the complainant states that he has been assaulted

by three persons and had given the name of accused No.2 -

Rameshbhai, Lakhubhaibhai Bhimabhaibhai and wife of

Lakhubhaibhai Bhimabhaibhai.

8.3 The brother of the complainant viz., Osman

Ibrahim, who is alleged to be present with the complainant

at the time of offence, has been examined as P.W.5, vide Exh.20. He has, in his deposition, stated that at the time of

the alleged offence, he was present with the complainant and

accused No.1 - Karshan Bhimabhaibhai Gohil was holding a

pipe and accused No.2 - Rameshbhai was holding a stick and

accused No.1 - Karshanbhai has assaulted the complainant

with a pipe on his head and accused No.2 - Rameshbhai has

assaulted the complainant with a stick on his hand, on his

shoulder and on the legs. He has also stated that the police

had taken his statement and they had initially gone to

Vagad Welfare Hospital at Rapar and thereafter had gone to

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1532/2009 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 29/04/2026

undefined

Bhachau. He has also stated that the field i.e. place of

offence, has already been sold by him. He does not have any

document to prove that the said property belongs to him and

he has also stated that the complaint was taken at Rapar

Government Hospital and the said complaint was given by

his brother i.e. the complainant (Abdul Ibrahim Siddiq); and

that he was present at the time when the said complaint

was taken; and that he and his brother i.e. the complainant

- both had narrated the facts in the said complaint. He has

stated that from his birth, he has stayed at Village : Rapar;

and that the accused are also staying at the same village;

and that he knew the accused even before the alleged

incident. He has also denied the fact that at the time when

the said complaint was mentioned, the names of any accused

were not given by them.

If his deposition is taken into consideration, the

said deposition is contrary to what has been stated in the

complaint. In the complaint, the complainant stated that four

unknown persons were present at the time of incident, who

had assaulted him; and that though, as per his version, at

the time of offence, accused No.2 - Rameshbhai,

Lakhubhaibhai Bhimabhaibhai and wife of Lakhubhaibhai

Bhimabhaibhai were present, he does not give the name of

Lakhubhai Bhimabhai.

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1532/2009 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 29/04/2026

undefined

8.4 The prosecution has thereafter produced the

panchanama of scene of offence vide Exh.12 and the arrest

panchanama vide Exh.13.

The panch witness - Arjanbhai Kamabhai Gohil,

who was the panch witness of panchanama at Exhs.12 and

13, has been examined as P.W.1, vide Exh.11. He has turned

hostile and has not supported the case of the prosecution.

The prosecution has examined Arjanbhai Gokalbhai

Meriya as P.W.2, vide Exh.14, who was the panch witness of

the panchanama of scene of offence. He has also turned

hostile and has not supported the case of the prosecution.

The prosecution has also examined Vershibhai

Bhojabhai Dodiya, who was the panch witness of panchanama

at Exh.13 i.e. the arrest panchanama. He has turned hostile

and has not supported the case of the prosecution.

8.5 The prosecution has examined the Head Constable

viz., Maheshpuri Zaverpuri Goswami as P.W.6, vide Exh.21,

who had taken the statement of the complainant in the

hospital, which is produced vide Exh.22.

The prosecution has examined Martaji Shakraji

Ninama, A.S.I., Rapar, as P.W.7, vide Exh.24, to whom the

doctor has given the telephonic intimation.

The officer working at the Collector Office viz.,

Nitish Pratapbhai Pandya has been examined as P.W.8, vide

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1532/2009 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 29/04/2026

undefined

Exh.25 with respect to the notification under the Bombay

Police Act, which is produced vide Exh.26.

The Investigating Officer i.e. the Dy.S.P.- in-charge

of Bhachau Division viz., Kanaiylal Shakrabhai Amin has

been examined as P.W.9, vide Exh.27. In his deposition, he

has stated that in the complaint, it is stated that four

persons had assaulted the complainant, but at the time of

investigation, it transpires that the assault was by using an

iron tommy as a weapon and it is also true that the alleged

weapon has not been recovered. He has also stated that the

complainant has sold the land to one Naranbhai

Mahadevbhai; and that on the date of the incident, the

complainant did not own any land; and that the land, on

which the alleged offence took place, was given to the

brother of the accused for cultivation. He has also stated that the complaint under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled

Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been filed by the

accused against the complainant; and that under his

investigation, it was also found that the complainant had

assaulted the accused by pelting stones; and that the

complainant had trespassed on the field in question.

8.6 The Medical Officer, CHC Rapar viz.,

Dr.Devendragiri Kirtigiri Gosai has been examined as P.W.10,

vide Exh.34. The history given by the complainant to the

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1532/2009 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 29/04/2026

undefined

said doctor states that he was assaulted by the stone and a

stick. The certificate to that effect has been produced vide

Exh.35; and that the names of the accused were not given to

the said doctor.

The prosecution has thereafter examined Dr.Kishor

Ashumal Lalchandani as P.W.11, vide Exh.43, who was the

Medical Officer at Vagad Welfare Hospital. The complainant

also does not give the names of the accused to the said

doctor. The certificate issued by the said doctor is produced

vide Exh.44.

It has also come on the record that the

complainant was admitted for 15-20 days in the said hospital

for treatment. The history given to the said doctor was that

the complainant was assaulted by a stick and by an iron

pipe. Therefore, there are lot of contradictions in the evidence that has been presented by the prosecution. The complainant

in the complaint states that he has been assaulted by an

iron tommy and by a stick, by unknown persons. In his

deposition, he has stated that he has been assaulted by

accused No.2 - Rameshbhai with an iron pipe and a stick.

The brother of the complainant, who has been examined as

P.W.5 (Exh.20) states that accused No.1 - Karshanbhai

assaulted the complainant with a pipe and accused No.2 had

assaulted the complainant with a stick. The Medical Officer

who has been examined as P.W.10 (Exh.34) states that the

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1532/2009 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 29/04/2026

undefined

history given to the said doctor stated that the complainant

was assaulted by pelting stones and by a stick; and that

the history given to the Medical Officer at Vagad Welfare

Hospital (P.W.11, vide Exh.43) states that the complainant

was assaulted with a stick and with an iron pipe. Therefore,

there are lot of contradictions in the statements given by the

complainant, and the prosecution has not been able to prove

that any such incident had taken place. Moreover, though the

complainant states the name of Lakhubhai Bhimabhai, who

was allegedly present at the time of offence, no offence

against the said person is registered.

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.

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1532/2009 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 29/04/2026

undefined

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:

"... 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

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1532/2009 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 29/04/2026

undefined

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, 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."

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1532/2009 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 29/04/2026

undefined

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

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:

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1532/2009 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 29/04/2026

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 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.

(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

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1532/2009 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 29/04/2026

undefined

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

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

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1532/2009 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 29/04/2026

undefined