[Cites 15, Cited by 0]

Gujarat High Court

State Of Gujarat vs Rabari Mafabhai Lembabhai on 17 March, 2026

                                                                                                                     NEUTRAL CITATION




                            R/CR.A/533/2013                                       CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 17/03/2026

                                                                                                                     undefined




                                                                              Reserved On   : 10/03/2026
                                                                              Pronounced On : 17/03/2026

                                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                                                R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 533 of 2013

                       ==========================================================
                                                        STATE OF GUJARAT
                                                              Versus
                                                RABARI MAFABHAI LEMBABHAI & ORS.
                       ==========================================================
                       Appearance:
                       MS MEGHA CHITALIYA, APP for the Appellant(s) No. 1
                       MR RJ GOSWAMI(1102) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1,2
                       NOTICE SERVED for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 3
                       ==========================================================

                          CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SANJEEV J.THAKER


                                                          CAV JUDGMENT

1. Feeling aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the

judgment and order of acquittal dated 24.01.2013 passed by

the learned Special Judge (Atrocity), Mehsana, in Special

Atrocity Case No.24 of 2011, for the offences punishable

under Sections 323, 504 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code,

Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled

Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 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").

2. The prosecution case, as unfolded during the trial

before the lower Court, is that the complainant was working

in the field of the accused where the accused was not giving

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/533/2013 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 17/03/2026

undefined

Rs.16,700/- as his share, therefore, the complainant did not

go at the field and by keeping grudge over this, prior to

week commencing from 02.04.2010 at about 9:00 a.m., accused

No.1 went to the complainant while he was purchasing

vegetables at Village : Palli and accused No.1 inflicted stick

on back side of left hand shoulder as well as accused No.2

inflicted stick on left side of back of complainant and left leg

and thereby caused injuries to him as well s while wife and

son of complainant had intervened to save the complainant,

they were also beaten by giving kick and fist blows; and that

the accused had administered threat of killing the

complainant and insulted his caste in public place and

thereby humiliated him. 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.24 of 2011. The charge was framed against

the accused person/s. The accused pleaded not guilty and

came to be tried.

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/533/2013 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 17/03/2026

undefined

4. In order to bring home the charge, the prosecution

has examined 8 witnesses and also produced 12 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

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/533/2013 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 17/03/2026

undefined

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 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.17, wherein it has

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/533/2013 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 17/03/2026

undefined

been stated that there are financial accounting issues between

the complainant and the accused. On 02.04.2010, the accused

had physically assaulted the complainant at around 9:00 a.m.,

when the complainant was at Bachubhai Raval's shop, which

is situated near the Hanumanji Temple, for purchasing

vegetables. Accused No.1 had given a blow on the shoulder of

the complainant and accused No.2 had given blow on the left

leg and thigh of the complainant. It is at that point of time

that after hearing the shouting of the complainant, the wife

of the complainant viz., Gauriben and his son - Hitesh

intervened and rescued him from the assault of the accused.

The complainant - Chamar (Chauhan) Ishwarbhai

Parshottambhai has been examined as P.W.1, vide Exh.16. In

his deposition, he has stated that there are financial

accounting issues between the complainant and the accused. He has also stated that there are around 500-600 people of

different communities in the village, in which, he is residing.

He has also stated that at the time when the said incident

had taken place, 20-25 people had gathered; and that near

the place of incident, there are residential houses of Ganpat

Juha Harijan and Jayantibhai Khengarbhai Harijan; and that

there is a shop of Kantibhai Chaturbhai Luhar.

8.2 The prosecution has examined the wife of the

complainant viz., Chauhan Gauriben Ishwarbhai as P.W., vide

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/533/2013 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 17/03/2026

undefined

Exh.18. In her cross-examination, she has stated that around

100-150 people had gathered at the time of incident. He has

also stated that the statement, which was made before the

doctor, was given by the son of the complainant - Hitesh and

the doctor has written the history accordingly.

8.3 The prosecution has examined the son of the

complainant viz., Chauhan Hiteshbhai Ishwarbhai as P.W.3,

vide Exh.19. He has reiterated what has been stated by the

complainant. He has, in his cross-examination, admitted that

at the time of the incident, 15-20 people had gathered

around the place of incident.

8.4 The prosecution has examined Dr.Bhaktibhai

Varvabhai Prajapati as P.W.4, vide Exh.20, who was the doctor, who had treated the complainant. In his deposition,

he has stated that the complainant did not suffer fractures

from the alleged incident. The medical certificate is produced

vide Exh.23.

8.5 The prosecution has produced the panchanama of

scene of offence vide Exh.25 and the witness of the

panchanama viz., Chauhan Chaturbhai Govindbhai has been

examined as P.W.5, vide Exh.24. He has turned hostile and

has not supported the case of the prosecution.

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/533/2013 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 17/03/2026

undefined

P.W.3 - Kalabhai Pethabhai, who was the panch

witness, has expired and the death certificate has been

produced vide Exh.27.

8.6 The prosecution has produced the panchanama of

recovery of weapon, which is produced vide Exh.30 and the

panch of the said panchanama viz., Kanjibhai Baldevbhai

Rabari has been examined as P.W.6, vide Exh.29.

The other witness i.e. P.W.5 - Thakor Kanaji

Ranaji has expired and the death certificate is produced at

Exh.28.

8.7 The prosecution has examined Jamtaji Hinduji

Waghela as P.W.7, vide Exh.33 and other police officer - Dy.S.P. - Kalabhai Maldevbhai Varu has been examined as

P.W.8, vide Exh.35.

8.8 While acquitting the accused, the Sessions Court

has taken into consideration the fact that at the place of

alleged incident, it has been proved that there was a

Hanumanji temple, a milk dairy, Ramji temple and the

houses of Ganpat Juha Harijan and Jayantibhai Khengarbhai

Harijan. There was also a shop of Kantibhai Chaturbhai

Luhar, but none have been examined by the prosecution. The

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/533/2013 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 17/03/2026

undefined

prosecution has tried to rely on the deposition of the

complainant, his wife - Gauriben and his son - Hitesh, who,

themselves have stated that there were other people who

were gathered at the place of incident and the place of

incident was a public place, but the prosecution has not

examined any independent witness to prove its case. It also

transpires from the evidence that there were disputes of

financial accounting between the complainant and the

accused.

8.9 The prosecution is also not able to justify the

reason of not producing any document when the complainant

is referred to the Civil Hospital, Ahmedabad as to what was

the treatment that the complainant had taken at the Civil

Hospital. Moreover, there are also contradictions and discrepancies in the deposition of the complainant, his wife

and his son with respect to the alleged abuse on the caste of

the complainant. The prosecution has also not been able to

prove that the complainant has been abused of his caste.

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

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/533/2013 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 17/03/2026

undefined

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.

8.11 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

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/533/2013 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 17/03/2026

undefined

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

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

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/533/2013 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 17/03/2026

undefined

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 against the order of conviction. But as a rule of prudence, it is desirable that the High Court should give

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/533/2013 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 17/03/2026

undefined

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/533/2013 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 17/03/2026

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/533/2013 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 17/03/2026

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

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/533/2013 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 17/03/2026

undefined

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 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.

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/533/2013 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 17/03/2026

undefined

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