[Cites 15, Cited by 0]

Gujarat High Court

State Of Gujarat vs Thakore Savsiji Kamaji on 17 March, 2026

                                                                                                                        NEUTRAL CITATION




                          R/CR.A/1326/2009                                           CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 17/03/2026

                                                                                                                        undefined




                                                                                  Reserved On   : 25/02/2026
                                                                                  Pronounced On : 17/03/2026

                                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                                              R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1326 of 2009

                       ==========================================================
                                                         STATE OF GUJARAT
                                                               Versus
                                                    THAKORE SAVSIJI KAMAJI & ORS.
                       ==========================================================
                       Appearance:
                       MS SHRUTI PATHAK, APP for the Appellant - State
                       MR MANAN S DOSHI(9795) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
                       BAILABLE WARRANT SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 1,4
                       ANKIT M MODI(7418) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
                       MR SHYAM R CHAKWAWALA(17305) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
                       MR RM CHAKWAWALA(1519) for the Respondent(s) No. 3
                       MR KISHAN R CHAKWAWALA(9846) for the Respondent(s) No. 4
                       DEEPAK N KHANCHANDANI(7781) for the Respondent(s) No. 5
                       ==========================================================

                          CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SANJEEV J.THAKER


                                                             CAV JUDGMENT

1. Feeling aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the

judgment and order of acquittal dated 15.04.2009, passed by

the learned Special Judge, Fast Track Court, Patan in

Special Atrocity Case No.48 of 2008, for the offences

punishable under Sections 323, 504, 506(2) and 114 of the

Indian Penal Code and Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled

Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities)

Act, 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

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1326/2009 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 17/03/2026

undefined

before the Sessions Court, is that the complainant Raghubhai

Manjibhai Parmar, a labourer working for Bhagabhai

Punjabhai in collecting money for sand excavation from the

Banas River, was threatened by accused Thakor Savsiji and

Kamaji on 12.05.2008 for working under Bhagabhai. Later the

same evening, near Dhadhana village, the accused again

stopped him, abused him with caste-based insults, and

assaulted him with pipe blows, kicks, fists, and sticks. On

his shout, Bhagabhai arrived, and the accused fled after

issuing further threats. 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.48 of 2008. 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

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1326/2009 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 17/03/2026

undefined

documentary evidence before the trial Court, which are

described in the impugned judgment.

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

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

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1326/2009 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 17/03/2026

undefined

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 dated 13.05.2008, wherein it has been alleged that

on 12.05.2008, as the contract for digging and selling the

sand from the river was given to Parmar Bhagabhai

Punjabhai and the said work was entrusted to the

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1326/2009 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 17/03/2026

undefined

complainant, at around 12:00 p.m., accused No.1 - Thakor

Savsiji and accused No.2 and Thakor Kamaji had come near

the river and had threatened the complainant not to come

near the river bank to collect the sand and thereafter, the

accused had left the place. In the evening when the

complainant had gone to ease himself, the accused had come

when the complainant was alone, at that point of time the

accused started abusing the complainant and had also abused

the complainant of his caste and the accused No.1 had

assaulted the complainant on his left hand and legs with a

pipe and accused No.4 had abused the complainant and had

assaulted him, and when the complainant started shouting

Parmar Bhagabhai Punjabhai, who was residing nearby came

running and saw that the accused were running away and

while running they had threatened him of his life.

8.2 The prosecution has examined Dr. Bhavnaben Soni

as P.W.1, vide Exh.14, who had treated the complainant on

13.05.2008, and in her deposition, she has stated that the

complainant had given the history to her, wherein the name

of accused Nos.1 and 2 have been given by the complainant

who had inflicted injury on the complainant. In the cross-

examination the said doctor has also stated the said injury

could also be self inflicted.

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1326/2009 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 17/03/2026

undefined

8.3 The prosecution has examined the panch of the

panchnama of recovery of weapon vide Exh.18. The

prosecution has examined Veerabhai Gigabhai as P.W.2, vide

Exh.17 and Dayalbhai Bhurabhai as P.W.3, vide Exh.19, and

both have turned hostile and not supported the case of the

prosecution.

8.4 The prosecution has also examined the panch

wtiness of the panchnama of scene of offence, which is

produced vide Exh.21, as P.W.4 Gaffarbhai Raghubhai, vide

Exh.20. The prosecution has tried to examine Kurshibhai

Raghubhai, vide Exh.22, as P.W.5 stating to be the

independent eye witness, who has turned hostile and has not

supported the case of the prosecution. He has stated that,

other than the fact that he had seen accused No.1, hitting the stick on the hands of the complainant, he had not seen

anything, also he is not aware of any of the said fact. In his

cross-examination, he has stated that at the time of the

alleged incident it was dark and he was not aware as to

who had assaulted and abused the complainant.

8.5 The prosecution has thereafter examined the

complainant i.e. the injured victim Raghubhai Parmar as

P.W.6, vide Exh.23, in his examination in chief, he had

stated that he sustained injuries of fracture, but the fact

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1326/2009 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 17/03/2026

undefined

remains that the said fact is totally contrary to the medical

certificate produced vide Exh.31, wherein the doctor does not

state that the complainant had been treated for the said

fracture. Moreover, the said complainant has also stated that

after the said injury he was unconscious and after regaining

consciousness he had filed the police complaint. He also

stated that he was unconscious from the the time he was

assaulted and he was taken to the house of Baghabhai till

he reached his house, and on the second day he was taken

to the Patan Hospital, and after the doctor had treated him

he gained consciousness, but the said fact is also not proven

by the prosecution. In view of the fact that medical

certificate and the Dr.Bhavnaben Soni, Medical Officer who

has been examined as P.W.1, vide Exh.14, who had treated

the complainant does not state that the complainant was unconscious when he had come for treatment. The prosecution

has thereafter examined Baghabhai, the cousin of the

complainant vide Exh.25, as P.W.7, he had turned hostile

and has not supported the case of the prosecution but he has

admitted the statement that were given to the police.

8.6 The prosecution has examined Amrabhai vide

Exh.28, who is the panch witness of the scene of offence

which is produced vide Exh.21. The panchnama of the body

of the accused is produced vide Exh.18 and recovery of

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1326/2009 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 17/03/2026

undefined

weapon which is produced vide Exh-27, the panch of the said

panchnama - Moijbhai Rajabali has been examined as P.W.9,

vide Exh.32 has turned hostile and not supported the case of

the prosecution.

8.7 The prosecution has examined Khimjibhai Sojaji

vide Exh.33 the P.S. of Harij Police Station, as P.W.10, he

has registered the complaint. The prosecution has examined

PW-11 Jayantibhai Ramjibhai vide Exh- 35 as PW- 11, he

was the A.S.I. who had taken the complaint to the hospital

on 13.05.2008. The prosecution has also examined the

D.Y.S.P. Kantibhai Patel vide Exh-39 as PW-12

8.8 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

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

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1326/2009 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 17/03/2026

undefined

Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of

Atrocities) Act, 1989.

8.9 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.

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

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1326/2009 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 17/03/2026

undefined

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 or to reiterate the reasons given by the trial court expression of general agreement with the reasons given by the Court the decision

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1326/2009 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 17/03/2026

undefined

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 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

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1326/2009 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 17/03/2026

undefined

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

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:

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1326/2009 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 17/03/2026

undefined

"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 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

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1326/2009 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 17/03/2026

undefined

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."

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:

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1326/2009 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 17/03/2026

undefined

"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."

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

NEUTRAL CITATION