[Cites 15, Cited by 0]
Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Bhurabhai Amibhai Desai on 30 April, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2139/2010 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/04/2026
undefined
Reserved On : 09/04/2026
Pronounced On : 30/04/2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2139 of 2010
==========================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
BHURABHAI AMIBHAI DESAI & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS. MEGHA CHITALIYA, APP for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR PRATIK B BAROT(3711) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1
NOTICE SERVED for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SANJEEV J.THAKER
CAV JUDGMENT
1. Feeling aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the
judgment and order of acquittal dated 31.08.2010, passed by
the learned Special Judge (Atrocity), Mehsana, in Special
Atrocity Case No. 18/2010, for the offences punishable under
Sections 323, 504, and 506(2) of the Indian Penal Code, and
Section 3(1)(X) of the Scheduled Castes, and the Scheduled
Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, 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 approached
the accused for a routine matter related to signing a school
document. On this, the accused became aggressive, started
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2139/2010 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/04/2026
undefined
abusing the complainant in filthy language, and threatened to
kill him. It is further alleged that the accused caused simple
injuries to the complainant and insulted him by using caste-
related abusive words in a public place. Due to this conduct,
the accused is alleged to have committed offences involving
hurt, intentional insult, criminal intimidation, and caste-based
humiliation. 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
(Atrocity) Case No.18/2010. 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 6 witnesses and also produced 5 documentary
evidence before the trial Court, which are described in the
impugned judgment are as under;
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2139/2010 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/04/2026
undefined
Oral Evidences
Sr.No. Exh. No. Particulars
1. Exh-8 Deposition of Complainant Ratibhai Jivabhai
Deposition of Witness Pravinbhai Madhavlal
2. Exh-13
Patel
3. Exh-14 Deposition of Witness Bhavesh Ratibhai Parmar
4. Exh-18 Deposition of Witness Baldevbhai Punjabhai
Deposition of Investigating Police Officer
5. Exh-19
Kalabhai Varu
6. Exh-20 Deposition of P.S.O. Maheshbhai Mohanlal
Documentary Evidences
Sr.No. Exh. No. Particulars
1. Exh-9 Original Complaint of the Complainant
Certificate showing the Complainant belongs to
2. Exh-10
Scheduled Caste
3. Exh-15 P.S.O.'s Duty Order regarding the crime
4. Exh-16 Panchnama of the scene of the offence
5. Exh-21 Station Diary
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
out the facts of the case and having taken this Court
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2139/2010 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/04/2026
undefined
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
doubt. Therefore, it is prayed to dismiss the present appeal
by confirming the impugned judgment and order passed by
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2139/2010 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/04/2026
undefined
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 Exhibit-9, and it is the
case of the prosecution that as the son of the complainant
was studying in 12th standard, and as he wanted to take
scholarship, he had taken the form from the accused and
thereafter, his son Chamar Bhavesh Kumar Ratilal, had gone
to the high school, and had met the principal, and at that
time the principal of the school had informed the son of the
complainant to initially get the signature of the Secretary of
the Valasna Dudh Utpadan Mandli Dairy, and pursuant to
that the complainant had gone to meet the accused for his
signature and stamp on 21.09.2009, and on the road near a
shop, he had met the accused, and he had informed the
accused to sign on the form and place the seal of the dairy,
and at that time the accused had taken the form from the
complainant, and started abusing the complainant of his
caste, and stated that he will not put his signature or the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2139/2010 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/04/2026
undefined
stamp of the Valasna Dudh Utpadan Mandli Dairy, and had
threatened him of his life, and had also torn off the said
form, and had stated that only if he receives an amount of
Rs. 200/-, he will place his signature and stamp of the
Valsana Dudh Utpadan Mandli Dairy, and saying so he had
physically assaulted the complainant, and had hurled abuses
on the complainant, and at that time Chamar Baldevbhai
Pujabhai came and intervened. In the said complaint it has
been stated that the said incident had taken place near the
barber shop.
8.2. The prosecution has examined the complainant
Ratibhai Jivabhai as PW-1 vide Exhibit-8, in his deposition
he has stated that the accused had demanded an amount of
Rs. 2000/- from the complainant. He has also reiterated what
has been stated in his complaint with respect to the fact
that when his son brought the form, the secretary had stated
that first they will have to go to the high school to get the
signature and stamp on the form and thereafter, he will put
his signature and stamp, and when the son went to the high
school, the principal had stated that first they will have to
get the signature and stamp of the Secretary of the Dairy,
and that is how the complainant had gone to meet the
secretary, who had demanded an amount of Rs.2000/- to fill
up the said form.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2139/2010 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/04/2026
undefined
8.3. The prosecution has thereafter examined PW-2 as
Praveenbhai Patel vide Exhibit-13, he was the school
principal of the school at Udani, in his deposition, he has
stated that the son of the complainant had come to him with
a blank form which was not filled up, and at that time he
had informed that he cannot put his signature and stamp on
a blank form, and therefore, the son of the complainant was
instructed to put his name, address and standard in which
he was studying, and thereafter, he will place his signature.
He has also informed that thereafter, the said student i.e.,
the son of the complainant had never come to meet him. In
his cross-examination, it is denied that the son of the
complainant had come to him, and he had informed to get
the signature and stamp of the authorized officer of the
dairy.
8.4. The prosecution has thereafter examined the son of
the complainant Bhaveshbhai Parmar vide Exhibit-14 as PW-
3, he has reiterated what has been stated by PW-2 i.e., the
school principal, he has stated that the school principal was
not ready to put his signature and stamp on a blank paper,
and therefore, he had given the form to his father. In his
cross-examination, he has also admitted the fact that the
school principal had only informed him that he will put his
signature and seal, other than that the school principal had
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2139/2010 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/04/2026
undefined
not informed him anything else and hence, the said
statement is contrary to what has been stated by the
complainant, as the complainant in his complaint and
deposition stated that the son of the complainant had
informed him that the principal had instructed to first get
the signature and seal of the authorized person of the dairy,
and the son of the complainant himself denies of any such
fact.
8.5. The prosecution has thereafter examined the
brother of the complainant i.e. Baldevbhai Pujabhai as PW-4
vide Exhibit-18, though, the complainant states that at the
time of incident said Baldevbhai was present, and he
intervened when the accused was physically assaulting the
complainant, and was hurling abuses on the complainant, but
the said witness denies the said fact and does not support
the case of the prosecution and has turned hostile.
8.6. The prosecution has thereafter examined the
D.Y.S.P., Kalabhai Maldevbhai Baru vide Exhibit-19 as PW-5.
The prosecution has also examined the P.S.O. Mahesh
Mohandas vide Exhibit-20 as PW-6.
8.7. If the entire case of the prosecution is taken into
consideration, there are lot of contradictions in the facts
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2139/2010 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/04/2026
undefined
stated by the complainant himself and the son of the
complainant. The fact also remains that though, the entire
incident is alleged to have taken place on the main road, but
the prosecution has not been able to prove the facts by any
other independent witnesses, who were present at the time of
incident. Moreover, there are also contradictions with respect
to the fact that the complainant had gone to get the
signature and seal of the manager of the dairy. In view of
the fact that the said fact was not necessary even according
to the son of the complainant, and of the principal of the
school. Moreover, there is also a contradiction with respect to
the alleged amount that was demanded by the accused. In
view of the fact that the complainant in his complaint states,
that the accused had demanded an amount of Rs.200/- for
filling up the form, and in his deposition he has stated that
the accused had demanded an amount of Rs. 2000/- to sign
and place his signature on the said form.
8.8. Moreover in the present case there is no medical
evidence produced by the prosecution to prove the case of
physical assault by the accused on the complainant. The fact
remains that even the brother of the complainant Baldevbhai
Pujabhai, who has been examined as PW-4, vide Exhibit-18,
has not supported the case of the prosecution. In view of the
fact, he has stated that he was not aware of any such
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2139/2010 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/04/2026
undefined
incident, and has not supported the case of the complainant
that he had intervened on 21.09.2009, when the complainant
was allegedly being assaulted by the accused.
8.9. Moreover, in the complaint it has been stated that
the incident had taken place at barber shop near Valsana
village. The panchnama produced vide Exhibit-16, states that
the panch witnesses were called at near the four lanes at
Gram Panchayat Office, and if the deposition of the
complainant is taken into consideration, the complainant has
stated that the incident had taken place at the Village
Dairy. Therefore, there are contradictions with respect to the
place of offence and also the demand of Rs.200/-, which had
been alleged to have been demanded by the accused which
has been stated in the complaint produced vide Exhibit-9,
and the deposition produced vide Exhibit-8, which states that
the demand of Rs.2000/- by the accused.
8.10. 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
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
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2139/2010 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/04/2026
undefined
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.
8.11. 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
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.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2139/2010 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/04/2026
undefined
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:
"... 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
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2139/2010 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/04/2026
undefined
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 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
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2139/2010 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/04/2026
undefined
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
should stay its hands and not interfere in the matter in the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2139/2010 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/04/2026
undefined
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
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2139/2010 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/04/2026
undefined
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
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2139/2010 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/04/2026
undefined
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
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
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2139/2010 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/04/2026
undefined
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
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.
19. In view of the above and for the reasons stated
above, the present Criminal Appeal fails to prove and the
same deserves to be dismissed and is dismissed, accordingly.
Record & Proceedings be remitted to the concerned trial
Court forthwith.
(SANJEEV J.THAKER,J)
ADITYA SINGH
