1. Feeling aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the
judgment and order of acquittal dated 07.10.2024, passed by
rd
the learned 3 Additional District and Sessions Judge,
B.N.S. Act (Originally Section 504, 506(2) and 114) of the
Indian Penal Code, and Sections 3(1)(R)(S), 3(2)(5-A) of the
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 on 24.08.2021, the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/762/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/04/2026
undefined
rickshaw to obtain medicine. When he reached the
Jalebiyapura area (NH No. 48), near Hariyala village, two
rickshaw. Thereafter, the accused verbally abused the
before the Kheda Court. They also used caste-based abusive
language and insulted him on account of his caste,
3. After investigation, sufficient prima facie evidence
was found against the accused person/s and therefore charge-
offences as alleged. Since the offence alleged against the
accused person/s was exclusively triable by the Court of
(Atrocity) Case No.29 of 2021. The charge was framed against
the accused person/s. The accused pleaded not guilty and
4. In order to bring home the charge, the prosecution
evidence before the Trial Court, which are described in the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/762/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/04/2026
undefined
Oral Evidence
PW Exhibit
Witness Name Description/Role
No. No.
PW- Ghanshyambhai Ashokbhai Complainant
1 Parmar (Fariyadi)
PW-
PW- Badrumiya Pirumiya
3 Sheikh
PW- Ravikant Ashokbhai
4 Parmar
PW- Pareshkumar Budhabhai
5 Parmar
PW-
PW-
PW-
Ajitsinh Mansinh Thakor Retired Deputy S.P. 46
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/762/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/04/2026
undefined
PW Exhibit
Witness Name Description/Role
No. No.
T.D.O. (Taluka
PW-
Officer)
Documentary Evidence
Sr. Exhibit
Description of Document
No. No.
Certified copy of the birth registration register
page
5. After hearing both the parties and after analysis
of evidence adduced by the prosecution, the learned trial
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/762/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/04/2026
undefined
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 appellants 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. As against that, learned APP for the respondent
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/762/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/04/2026
undefined
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. It is the case of the prosecution in the complaint
produced at exhibit 21, that on 24.09.2021, the complainant
along with witness Ashokbhai were proceeding to Ahmedabad
in a rickshaw for the purpose of procuring medicines. When
they reached Jalebiyapura area within the limits of village
Hariyala, both the accused persons came on a motorcycle and
intercepted the rickshaw of the complainant by standing in
front of it. Upon the complainant halting the rickshaw, both
the accused persons approached the complainant and the
witness and hurled abuses at them and stated that the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/762/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/04/2026
undefined
complainant should withdraw the case filed by him at the
Kheda Court. They further uttered caste-related derogatory
words and thereby intentionally insulted and humiliated the
complainant in a public place. The accused persons also
extended threats that they would burn the family members of
the complainant alive and issued threats to kill them. In
respect of the aforesaid incident, the complainant lodged the
said complaint.
8.2. The complainant was examined on oath as PW 1, at
Exhibit 20. He deposed that at the time of the incident, he
was proceeding in a rickshaw along with his father,
Ashokbhai, when the accused persons came on a motorcycle,
intercepted the rickshaw, and threatened him to withdraw
the case filed against them. They abused him, uttered caste-
related derogatory words, and extended threats to kill him.
He further stated that due to the incident, his father's blood
pressure increased and his condition deteriorated, whereupon
they went to Nadiad, procured medicine to control blood
pressure from a medical store, and administered it to him.
Thereafter, an application was submitted, and subsequently,
the present complaint came to be lodged. In cross-
examination, he admitted that the place of occurrence is
situated about 3-4 km from Kheda and about 22 km from
Ahmedabad, and that it is a public place on National
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/762/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/04/2026
undefined
Highway No. 8 near a gas plant with vehicular movement,
though comparatively less during afternoon hours due to heat.
8.3. On behalf of the prosecution, the complainant's father,
PW 2, Ashokbhai, who was present at the time of the
incident, was examined at Exhibit 30. He has deposed that
while he and his son were proceeding towards Ahmedabad,
the accused persons intercepted them and pushed them out of
the rickshaw. The accused demanded that possession of the
land be handed over to them, abused them using caste-
related derogatory words, and extended threats to kill them.
Thereafter, they went to Nadiad and lodged the complaint.
He has further stated that a case is pending in the Kheda
Court and that whenever they pass by, the accused persons
insult them on the basis of caste. In his cross-examination,
he admitted that the incident occurred on a highway where
there is vehicular movement, and that he has difficulty in
hearing. He has also admitted that in his police statement,
the exact words uttered by the accused were not separately
recorded. It is further brought on record that a land grabbing
complaint has been filed by him against accused No. 1.
8.4. On behalf of the prosecution, the complainant's brother,
Ravikant Parmar, was examined at Exhibit 37. This witness
has deposed that he came to know about the incident
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/762/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/04/2026
undefined
through his father. Thus, his evidence is hearsay in nature,
and therefore, no reliance can be placed upon his testimony
to hold the accused guilty.
8.5. On behalf of the prosecution, to prove the panchnama of
the place of offence, panch witnesses Badrumiya Pirumiya
Sheikh (Exhibit 32) and Pareshkumar Parmar (Exhibit 40)
were examined. However, both these panch witnesses did not
support the case of the prosecution and were declared hostile.
Therefore, the prosecution has failed to prove the panchnama
of the place of offence.
8.6. On behalf of the prosecution, witness Bhargavbhai
Maheshbhai Mali was examined on oath at Exhibit 45. In his
cross-examination, he admitted that his role was limited to
recording the complaint. He has further admitted that the
complaint was lodged by the complainant after a delay of
twelve days, and no explanation for such delay has been
provided in the complaint. He has also stated that, to his
knowledge, a civil dispute regarding land is pending between
the complainant and the accused.
8.7. On behalf of the prosecution, Kirtikumar Patel was
examined on oath at Exhibit 50, who is the Investigating
Officer of the case. In his cross-examination, he admitted that
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/762/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/04/2026
undefined
during the course of investigation, it transpired that civil
litigation is pending between the complainant and the
accused. He has further admitted that the complainant has
also filed another complaint under the provisions of the
Atrocities Act. He has also admitted that no explanation has
been provided by the complainant for lodging the complaint
belatedly. He further stated that he has not investigated as
to which religion the complainant professes. He further
admitted that he has not taken statements of people in the
vicinity of place of incident.
8.8. Thus, material contradictions are found in the evidence
of the complainant and that of witness Ashokbhai. The
complainant has deposed that the accused asked his father to
withdraw the case filed in the Kheda Court and thereafter
uttered caste-related abusive words. Whereas witness
Ashokbhai has deposed that the accused demanded that
possession of the land be handed over to them.
8.9. Further, though witness Ashokbhai, who was present
with the complainant at the time of the incident, has
deposed that the accused uttered caste-related words, neither
the complainant nor the said witness has stated in their
evidence that such words were uttered in public view or in
the presence of any independent persons. In the cross-
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/762/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/04/2026
undefined
examination of the complainant, it has been admitted that
the place of occurrence is a public place with vehicles and
transport, though he stated that such movement is
comparatively less during afternoon hours due to heat.
Moreover, the Investigating Officer has also stated that the
place of incident is situated on a National Highway where
there is continuous vehicular movement. Thus, from the
evidence on record, it clearly emerges that the place of
occurrence is a public place with vehicular movement.
However, despite the same, the Investigating Officer has not
recorded the statements of any independent witnesses present
at or near the place of incident. Thus, the prosecution has
failed to prove, beyond reasonable doubt, that the accused
persons uttered caste-related abusive words in public so as to
intentionally insult and humiliate the complainant and the
witness.
8.10. The Sessions Court has also taken into consideration
the fact that, there is a lot of contradiction and discrepancies
in the evidence of the complainant and his father, who
claimed to be present at the time of the incident, whereas,
the complainant said that the accused had threatened him of
withdrawing the case that is pending at Kheda Court,
whereas, the father of the complainant had stated that the
accused had threatened him of giving the possession of the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/762/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/04/2026
undefined
property.
8.11. The Sessions Court has also taken into consideration,
that the prosecution witness Ashokbhai i.e. the father of the
complainant, whom the complainant states that his blood
pressure had increased and therefore, he was given medicine
for the same at Nadiad at the medical store but the fact
remains that in his deposition the father of the complainant
does not state of any such incident to have taken place.
8.12. It is also the case of the complainant that as soon as
the said incident had taken place, he had given an
application at SC/ST cell Nadiad and thereafter had gone to
his residence and thereafter, a complaint was filed on
06.09.2024, but the fact remains that there are no
documentary evidence to support the said fact, neither any
application is produced nor the officer of SC/ST Cell have
been summoned to produce any documents pertaining to the
at alleged complaint that was filed on the date of incident,
nor it transpires from the evidence of the Investigating
Officer that any such complaint was filed and registered. The
prosecution has also failed to prove that the accused had
threatened the complainant and /or his father, nor has the
prosecution been able to prove by leaving any independent
witnesses, in view of the fact that the said incident had
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/762/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/04/2026
undefined
taken place on the main road.
8.13. Therefore, the appellant 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 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.
8.14. 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.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/762/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/04/2026
undefined
9. Further, learned advocate for the appellant 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.
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
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/762/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/04/2026
undefined
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,
reported in AIR 1995 SC 280, Supreme Court has held as
under:
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/762/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/04/2026
undefined
"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
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/762/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/04/2026
undefined
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:
(1) An appellate court has full
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/762/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/04/2026
undefined
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
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/762/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/04/2026
undefined
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/762/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/04/2026
undefined
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 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, accordingly. Record & Proceedings be remitted
to the concerned trial Court forthwith.
Sd/-
(SANJEEV J.THAKER,J)
URIL RANA
