[Cites 12, Cited by 0]

Gujarat High Court

State Of Gujarat vs Mahendrabhai Mafatbhai Parmar on 30 April, 2026

                                                                                                                         NEUTRAL CITATION




                         R/CR.A/1647/2010                                             CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/04/2026

                                                                                                                         undefined




                                                                                   Reserved On   : 17/04/2026
                                                                                   Pronounced On : 30/04/2026

                                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                            R/CRIMINAL APPEAL (AGAINST ACQUITTAL) NO. 1647 of 2010

                      ==========================================================
                                                 STATE OF GUJARAT
                                                       Versus
                                        MAHENDRABHAI MAFATBHAI PARMAR & ORS.
                      ==========================================================
                      Appearance:
                      MS MEGHA CHITALIYA, APP for the Appellant(s) No. 1
                      RULE SERVED for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3,4
                      ==========================================================

                         CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SANJEEV J.THAKER


                                                           CAV JUDGMENT

1. Feeling aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the

judgment and order of acquittal dated 15.06.2010, passed by

the learned Sessions Judge, Kheda at Nadiad, in Sessions

Case No.44 of 2010, for the offences punishable under

Sections 354, 452, 504 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code,

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 incident occurred on

14.03.2008, at approximately 6:30 PM. The complainant was

cleaning her house while her husband had gone to the

village outskirts (boundary) to deliver milk at the brick kilns.

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1647/2010 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/04/2026

undefined

While she was alone, a man named Mahendrabhai Mafatbhai

Parmar entered her house after throwing a cricket ball inside

as a pretext. Once inside, he allegedly caught hold of the

complainant and attempted to commit rape. The complainant

began shouting and tried to escape the house. At that

moment, three other individuals Pintu Dahyabhai Parmar,

Ashok Vashrambhai Parmar, and Navneetbhai Vinubhai

Parmar, were standing at the door. All these individuals are

residents of Rasikpura village. They allegedly threatened her,

stating that she would face dire consequences if she tried to

leave the house. Following these threats and verbal abuse, a

formal complaint was filed regarding the incident 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

has examined 7 witnesses and also produced 3 documentary

evidence before the Trial Court, which are described in the

impugned judgment as under:

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1647/2010 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/04/2026

undefined

ORAL EVIDENCE

Designation/ Exhibit No. Witness Name Role No.

Hansaben Kamleshbhai

Baraiya

Fatesinh Fulabhai 2 Panch Witness 11 Sodhaparmar

Jashiben Shanabhai Amarsinh

Chauhan

Kamleshbhai Chaturbhai

Baraiya

Witness

Hostile)

P.S.O. (Police

Sub-Officer)

I.O.

7 Sursingh Balabhai Parmar (Investigating 18

Officer)

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1647/2010 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/04/2026

undefined

DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE

Exhibit No. Description of Document No.

Panchnama of the Scene of

Offense

Extract of the Station Diary

Entry

5. After hearing learned advocate for the appellant

and 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 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

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1647/2010 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/04/2026

undefined

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. Though served, none appears on behalf of the

respondents.

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

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1647/2010 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/04/2026

undefined

that has been filed below Exhibit 10, wherein the

complainant has stated that, on 14.03.2008 at around

10.30 p.m., when the complainant was at her residence

and when her husband was not at the house, at that time

accused no.1- Mahendra Parmar had entered the house of

the complainant and had thrown a cricket ball inside the

house and after entering the house, he tried to catch hold

of the complainant with an intention to rape her and tried

to outrage her modesty and the complainant started

shouting and came out of the house, At that time accused

no.2-Pintu Parmar, accused no.3-Ashok Parmar, accused

no.4-Navneet Parmar were standing near the main door of

the complainant's residence and came in support of accused

no.1 and stated that, if she leaves the house, her life will

be endangered and the accused had also abused the complainant.

8.2. The complainant has been examined as P.W.1, in her

deposition, she has reiterated the facts stated in the

complaint. She has also admitted that, a complaint under

the Atrocities Act is filed against the witnesses-Jassiben,

Kamleshbhai, Navneetbhai and 18 other people. In her

deposition, she has also admitted in the cross-examination

that there were disputes with respect to the land

belonging to Nanubhai.

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1647/2010 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/04/2026

undefined

8.3. The prosecution thereafter has produced the

panchnama of scene of offence vide exhibit-12 and the

panch witness-Fatehsinh SodhaParmar has been examined

as PW2 vide exhibit-11.

8.4. The prosecution has thereafter examined Jashiben

Shanabhai Chauhan as PW-3 vide exhibit 13. In her

examination-in-chief she has stated that as the complainant

did not hand over the cricket ball to the accused no.1, the

accused no.1 had tried to snatch the hands of the

complainant. She has stated that on hearing the shouting,

she came out and came to know that the shouting was

from the residence of Kamleshbhai Chaturbhai, i.e. the

husband of the complainant and had seen four people coming down from the stairs, wherein the complainant was

also present. She has also admitted that, the mother of

accused no.3-Ashokbhai had filed a criminal case for the

offence under the Atrocities Act against the said witness.

8.5. The prosecution has thereafter examined the husband

of the complainant Kamlesh Baria as PW-4 vide exhibit-14.

He was not present at the time of incident, but in his

cross-examination he has admitted that accused no.3-

Ashokbhai Parmar has filed a complaint under the

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1647/2010 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/04/2026

undefined

Atrocities Act against the said witness and 18 other

people.

8.6. The prosecution has examined Nanubhai Solanki as

P.W.5 vide exhibit-15, the said witness has turned hostile

and has not supported the case of the prosecution.

8.7. The prosecution has thereafter examined PSO at

Kheda Police Station-Lalitaben Dabhi vide exhibit-16 as

P.W.6, she has produced the station diary which is

produced vide exhibit 17.

8.8. The prosecution has thereafter examined the PSI at

Kheda Town Police Station vide Exhibit-18 as P.W.7-

Sursangbhai Parmar. Even from the deposition of the Police Officers the offence under Sections 354, 452, 504

and 114 of the Indian Penal Code has not been

established by the prosecution. The prosecution has not

been able to prove that the accused have committed the

offence under Sections 354, 452, 504 and 114 of the

Indian Penal Code.

8.9. If the evidence of all the witnesses are taken into

consideration, the complainant has not been able to prove

that the accused no.1 has committed the offence of

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1647/2010 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/04/2026

undefined

outraging the complainant's modesty. Moreover, there are

contradictions in the deposition of the witnesses, whereas

in the present case, the Sessions Court has rightly not

relied on the deposition of the complainant in view of the

fact that it has come on record that Jasiben was not

present at the time of incident and she had only seen the

accused coming down the stairs and thereafter the alleged

incident has been informed to Jasiben by the complainant.

The said Jasiben also does not state that the accused had

tried to rape complainant as stated in the complaint and

as per the deposition of the complainant, the husband of

the complainant was also not present at the time of

incident. It has also come on record that after the house

of the complainant, there was an open road and after the

open road, there was a compound wall, there are cross- complaints filed by the parties. There is also a complaint

under the Atrocities Act, which has been filed against the

witness Jasiben, husband of the complainant Kamleshbhai,

Navneetbhai and 18 other people.

8.8. The prosecution has also not been able to prove by

any independent witnesses about the alleged offence and

the witnesses who have been examined by the prosecution

can be said to be the witnesses against whom a cross-

complaint has been filed.

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1647/2010 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/04/2026

undefined

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

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.

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1647/2010 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/04/2026

undefined

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,

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

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1647/2010 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/04/2026

undefined

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

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

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1647/2010 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/04/2026

undefined

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 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

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1647/2010 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/04/2026

undefined

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 by the trial court."

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1647/2010 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/04/2026

undefined

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.

17. In view of above facts and circumstances of the

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

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1647/2010 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/04/2026

undefined

found that there is no infirmity or irregularity in the

findings of fact recorded by learned trial Court and under