[Cites 15, Cited by 0]

Gujarat High Court

State Of Gujarat vs Ranubhai Dhudabhai Meniya on 17 March, 2026

                                                                                                                      NEUTRAL CITATION




                            R/CR.A/753/2012                                        CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 17/03/2026

                                                                                                                      undefined




                                                                                Reserved On   : 06/03/2026
                                                                                Pronounced On : 17/03/2026

                                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                                               R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 753 of 2012

                       ==========================================================
                                                     STATE OF GUJARAT
                                                           Versus
                                              RANUBHAI DHUDABHAI MENIYA & ORS.
                       ==========================================================
                       Appearance:
                       MS MEGHA CHITALIYA, APP for the Appellant(s) No. 1
                       MR KIRTIDEV R DAVE(3267) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3,4
                       MR PV PATADIYA(5924) for the Opponent(s)/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 17.03.2012 passed by

the learned Special Judge, Surendranagar, Camp at Limbdi,

in Special (Atrocity) Case No.44 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

before the lower Court, is that on the fateful night of

15.04.2008, the respondents - accused armed with deadly

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/753/2012 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 17/03/2026

undefined

weapons like hand sickle ('Dhariya'), scythe sickle ('Farsi'),

etc., reached at the place of the complainant, keeping grudge

about the fact that the complainant and others have

submitted complaints against the accused persons and made

an assault upon the complainant and other witnesses and

caused them severe injuries and also abused them in public

and also threatened them to kill them. 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.44 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

has examined 15 witnesses and also produced 5 documentary

evidence before the trial Court, which are described in the

impugned judgment.

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/753/2012 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 17/03/2026

undefined

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 and

learned advocate for the original complainant have 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

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/753/2012 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 17/03/2026

undefined

appreciating the evidence led before the learned trial Court.

7. As against that, learned advocate for the

respondent/s - original accused 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 relied on the complaint that

has been produced vide Exh.19, which is filed on 16.04.2008

at 5:15 hours. In the said complaint, the complainant has

stated that on 15.04.2008 at round 10:30 p.m., the accused

had come and accused No.1 had hand sickle (' Dhariya') in his

hand, accused No.2 had scythe sickle ('Farsi'), accused No.3

had hand stick knife ('Gupti') and accused No.4 had wooden

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/753/2012 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 17/03/2026

undefined

stick in her hand and had started assaulting the complainant

and abused him of his caste and stated with respect to the

complaint that was filed before the Panchayat by the

complainant and one Dinesh Shamji and the accused were

abusing the complainant, therefore, he got frightened by the

said incident and went to his house. Thereafter, the accused

rushed towards the house of Kavji Jesing. At that point of

time, the complainant intervened to save Kavji. The accused

started abusing the complainant of his caste and at that

point of time, Tinuben and Manguben tried to save Kavji and

the accused pushed them and the accused also abused

Dineshbhai Shamjibhai, who was standing near his house. All

the accused were abusing the complainant and threatened

him of his life.

8.2 The prosecution has examined Muljibhai Talshibhai

Chavda as P.W.1, vide Exh.14. He was the panch witness of

the panchanama of place of offence, which is produced vide

Exh.15. In his deposition, the said panch witness has stated

that only his signature was taken in the said panchanama;

and that the police had not asked him anything while

preparing the said panchanama.

The prosecution has examined the complainant

viz.,- Mohanbhai Bhojabhai Waghela as P.W.2, vide Exh.18.

He has narrated the facts stated in the complaint.

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/753/2012 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 17/03/2026

undefined

The prosecution has examined Majuben Kavjibhai

Talapada Koli as P.W.3, vide Exh.21, who has stated that

she was standing near her house. At that time, accused

Nos.2 and 3 had altercation with Kavjibhai and accused No.3

was giving filthy abuses to said Kavaji. The said witness, in

her cross-examination, has stated that the only dispute was

as to why the complaint has been filed before the Panchayat

and other than that, there was no other talk; and that there

was no discussion by the accused with the complainant or

Dineshbhai.

The prosecution has examined Dineshbhai

Shamjibhai Chauhan as P.W.4, vide Exh.22. He has turned

hostile and has not supported the case of the prosecution. He

has stated that nothing has happened in front of the said

witness.

The prosecution has examined Kavjibhai Jesingbhai

Meniya as P.W.5, vide Exh.23. In his examination-in-chief, he

has stated that he has not been physically assaulted by the

accused; and that all the accused had tried to enter into his

house and had tried to find him out. He has also stated in

his cross-examination that on 15.04.2008, there was no

altercation between him and the accused; and that it is not

true that on 15.04.2008, the accused had come to his house

to physically assault him.

The wife of the complainant - Savitaben

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/753/2012 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 17/03/2026

undefined

Mohanbhai Waghela has been examined as P.W.6, vide

Exh.24.

The daughter of Kavjibhai viz., Manguben (wife of

Nanjibhai Ajmalbhai Manethiya Talapada Koli) has been

examined as P.W.7, vide Exh.25. On perusal of her

deposition, it transpires that the weapon, that was alleged to

have been carried with the accused, does not match as per

the description given her.

The prosecution has examined the other daughter

of Kavjibhai viz., Rekhaben (wife of Bhaveshbhai Amarshibhai

Padhariya) as P.W.8, vide Exh.26.

The brother of the complainant viz., Khanabhai

Bhojabhai Waghela has been examined as P.W.9, vide Exh.27.

He, in his deposition, has stated that he or his brother have

not been physically assaulted by the accused. He has also stated that he has not seen anybody carrying hand sickle

('dhariya') or a stick in his hand.

The prosecution has examined another daughter of

Kavjibhai viz., Gauriben (wife of Dalsukhbhai Abhubhai

Sapra) as P.W.10, vide Exh.28. He has stated that as his

father was assaulted, he and his sister had intervened and

thereafter, the complainant and Khanabhai had come to

rescue them.

The other son of Kavjibhai viz., Valjibhai has been

examined as P.W.11, vide Exh.29, wherein he stated that

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/753/2012 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 17/03/2026

undefined

Mohanbhai and Khanabhai had intervened to rescue them.

The prosecution has also examined Kantaben

Kavjibhai as P.W.12, vide Exh.30.

8.3 The prosecution has examined P.S.I. - Chandubhai

Lalubhai Padvi as P.W.13, vide Exh.31. In his cross-

examination, he has stated that at the time of filing the

complaint, the complainant has not stated that the

complainant was abused with filthy words.

The prosecution has examined Juvansinh Bababhai

Zala, Police Officer. The station diary is produced vide

Exh.34.

The Dy.S.P. - Ramjibhai J. Pargi has been

examined as P.W.15, vide Exh.35.

8.4 The Sessions Court, while considering the entire

evidence, has taken into consideration the deposition of the

complainant (Exh.18) and the complaint filed by him (Exh.19).

There are lot of discrepancies and contradictions with respect

to the words alleged to have been abused of the caste of the

complainant.

Further, in the deposition, the complainant has

stated that the accused had threatened the complainant to

withdraw the application that was filed before the Panchayat

against them, failing which, his life will be endangered and

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/753/2012 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 17/03/2026

undefined

thereafter abused the complainant of his caste.

In the very complaint, it has been stated that why

the complaint was filed before the Panchayat against the

accused by the complainant and thereafter abuses were made.

Therefore, there are clear contradictions in the complaint and

the deposition of the complainant.

8.5 Further, if the oral evidence of Majuben Kavjibhai

(P.W.3), who has been examined vide Exh.21, is taken into

consideration, she has not given any evidence that the

accused had abused the complainant of his caste. The other

witness of the prosecution i.e. P.W.4 - Dineshbhai Shamjibhai

Chauhan, who has been examined vide Exh.22, has also not

supported the case of the prosecution. Under the

circumstances, from his evidence, it cannot be said that the accused are guilty of the offences as alleged.

8.6 The other factor, which has also been taken into

consideration by the Sessions Court, is that it has been

alleged in the complaint that at the time of the alleged

incident, Kavjibhai - P.W.5 was also assaulted and abused,

but he has neither filed any complaint nor there is any

evidence coming forward that he has been medically treated

for the alleged injury. The other factor that the daughter of

Kavjibhai viz., Tinuben was also present at the time of

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/753/2012 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 17/03/2026

undefined

incident, but she has also not been examined by the

prosecution, though it has been stated that during the said

incident, said Tinuben was also injured, but there is nothing

on record to prove the said fact. The prosecution has also

not been able to produce the alleged weapons used for the

alleged offence.

8.7 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

Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of

Atrocities) Act, 1989.

8.8 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

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/753/2012 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 17/03/2026

undefined

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

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

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/753/2012 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 17/03/2026

undefined

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 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.

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/753/2012 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 17/03/2026

undefined

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 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."

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/753/2012 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 17/03/2026

undefined

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:

"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:

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/753/2012 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 17/03/2026

undefined

(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 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

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/753/2012 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 17/03/2026

undefined

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:

"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

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/753/2012 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 17/03/2026

undefined

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

view/finding of the learned trial Court leading to the