[Cites 13, Cited by 0]

Gujarat High Court

State Of Gujarat vs Hareshbhai Ramabhai Patel on 9 March, 2026

                                                                                                                      NEUTRAL CITATION




                             R/CR.A/1393/2012                                        JUDGMENT DATED: 09/03/2026

                                                                                                                      undefined




                                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                                                R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1393 of 2012

                       ==========================================================
                                                       STATE OF GUJARAT
                                                             Versus
                                                HARESHBHAI RAMABHAI PATEL & ORS.
                       ==========================================================
                       Appearance:
                       MS MEGHA CHITALIYA, APP for the Appellant(s) No. 1
                       MR DEVANSH KAKKAD FOR MR A S TIMBALIA(7372) for the
                       NOTICE SERVED for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 5
                       ==========================================================

                          CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SANJEEV J.THAKER

                                                           Date : 09/03/2026

                                                             JUDGMENT

1. Feeling aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the

judgment and order of acquittal dated 07.05.2012 passed by th the learned Special Judge, 4 Additional Sessions Court,

Kheda at Nadiad, in Special (Atrocity) Case No.10 of 2011,

for the offences punishable under Sections 506(2) of the

Indian Penal Code and Section 3(1)(10) 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 the complainant - Bhulabhai

Valabhai Vankar, resident of Jaliya, Tal. Mahemdabad is

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1393/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/03/2026

undefined

residing with his family at Mahemdavad and serving at

Telephone Exchange at Kathlal since last ten years. That

on 05.01.2009, he purchased one Auto Rickshaw bearing

registration No.GJ-7-TT-4016 from Hareshbhai Ramanbhai

Patel, Bhulapura, Tal.Kathlal for Rs.70,000/-, and at that

time, the complainant had paid Rs.20,000/- to him and

assured that rest of the amount i.e.50,000/-, he would give in

ten installments of Rs.5,000/-. Thereafter, he had paid

regularly for five months through cheque in the name of

Hareshbhai Ramanbhai Patel, but he could not paid from the

month of June since Hareshbhai had permanently changed

his address to Ahmedabad. Thereafter the driver of the

complainant viz. Sikandarmiya Malek, Re. Jaliya,

Tal.Mahemdavad informed the complainant that one

Bhikhabhai Mathurbhai Raval had taken away the said Auto from him. At the same evening, he met Bhikhabhai

Mathurbhai who was the guarantor while the complainant

was purchasing auto and he informed the complainant that

since the complainant had not paid installments regularly, he

took away auto and also asked the complainant to give

Rs.25,000/- and then only he would release the auto.

Therefore, on 22.07.2009, the complainant gave Rs.25,000/- to

Bhikhabhai, in cash, against which, he received a receipt

also. However, at that time, said Bhikhabhai informed the

complainant to give additional Rs.5,000/- and then only he

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1393/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/03/2026

undefined

would release the R.C.Book of the auto. Therefore, on

22.09.2009, he had given a barer cheque of Rs.5,000/-, against

which, a receipt was issued for the same. Thus, as such, the

whole transaction regarding purchase of auto-rickshaw had

been completed. However, in the month of April-2010, said

Bhikhabhai Mathurbhai Raval had again snatched away the

auto with the help of finance agency person from Khatraj

Chokdi and the same was parked in front of the house of

Bhikhabhai. Thereafter, a person from Radhika Finance made

a call to the complainant asking him to pay Rs.42,000/- and

then they would transfer the auto in the name of

complainant as an owner. In the meantime, Hareshbhai had

returned to Kathlal and started business of paan bidi, where

the complainant used to sit. He also asked the complainant

to pay Rs.42,000/-, otherwise, he would not release the auto or R.C.Book.

That on 23.07.2010 at about 6:00 O'clock, a

quarrel took place between the complainant and the accused

while the complainant stood at his office regarding

installments and threatened the complainant that they would

sell the auto to another person. That on 24.07.2010, when

the complainant was doing duty at his office, all the accused

had come there and Hareshbhai pointed out knife at him and

uttered foul abuses towards his caste. Not only that, but rest

of the accused also uttered foul abuses to the complainant in

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1393/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/03/2026

undefined

public at his office relating to his caste. 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.10 of 2011. 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 13 witnesses and also produced 5 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.

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1393/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/03/2026

undefined

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

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

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1393/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/03/2026

undefined

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 filed

vide Exh.28 dated 24.07.2010. As per the said complaint, the

alleged incident had taken place on 24.07.2010, wherein

accused Nos.1 and 2 had shown knife to the complainant and threatened him. Accused No.3 is a father of accused Nos.1

and 2. It is the case of the prosecution that accused Nos.3

and 4 had abused the complainant of his caste. The

prosecution has examined the complainant - Bhulabhai

Valabhai Vankar as P.W.1, vide Exh.28, who has stated that

he is working in the Telephone Department as Telephone

Operator for the last ten years; and that the incident has

taken place at his office on 24.07.2010.

8.2 The prosecution has examined the panch witnesses

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1393/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/03/2026

undefined

of panchnama of arrest and recovery of weapon (Exh.33) as

P.W.2 - Bhaveshkumar Kanubhai Bhoi and Shabbirbhai

Sikandarbhai Vora as P.W.12, vide Exhs.33 & 54,

respectively. Both have turned hostile and have not supported

the case of the prosecution.

The panchas of the panchnama of scene of offence

(Exh.36) viz., Vishnubhai Maganbhai Parmar and Bhupatbhai

Jenabhai Solanki have been examined as P.W.3 and 4, vide

Exhs.35 and 37, respectively. Both have not supported the

case of the prosecution and turned hostile.

The prosecution has examined Natubhai Gotabhai

Chauhan as P.W.5, vide Exh.39, who has stated to be the

Security Guard working in the Telephone Exchange when the

alleged incident had taken place. He has also not supported

the case of the prosecution and turned hostile.

Vide Exh.41, the prosecution has examined another

Security Guard - Pravinbhai Punambhai Zala as P.W.6, who

has not supported the case of the prosecution and turned

hostile.

The caste certificate of the complainant has been

produced vide Exh.43.

The driver of the complainant, who was driving

the auto-rickshaw viz., Maheshbhai Shivabhai Solanki has

been examined as P.W.7, vide Exh.44, but he has also turned

hostile.

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1393/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/03/2026

undefined

The prosecution has examined Sikandarmiya

Munirkhan Malek as P.W.8, vide Exh.45, who was also the

driver of the complainant during the time of the alleged

incident. He has also turned hostile and not supported the

case of the prosecution.

The prosecution has examined Bhanubhai

Chhotabhai Parmar as P.W.9, vide Exh.49, who is the owner

of the tea-shop. He has not supported the case of the

prosecution and has turned hostile.

The P.S.I. - Harigiri Manigiri Gauswami, who has

recorded the FIR, has been examined as P.W.10, vide Exh.50.

The employee of the Radhika Finance, which is

alleged to have financed, viz., Devedash Vitthalbhai Desai has

been examined as P.W.11, vide Exh.53. The Dy.S.P. -

Punambhai Chanabhai Baranda has been examined as P.W.13, vide Exh.58, wherein, he has stated that he has

taken the statements of all the witnesses including the panch

witnesses as stated hereinabove. All the witnesses have

turned hostile and have not supported the case of the

prosecution.

8.3 The fact remains that the alleged incident,

according to the complainant, had taken place on 24.07.2010

at Telephone Exchange. The prosecution has not examined

any of the senior officers of the said department. It is also

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1393/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/03/2026

undefined

the case of the prosecution that the incident had taken place

at around 11:30 hours and at that point of time, the other

officers were also present, but no independent witnesses have

supported the case of the prosecution. The fact of taking

away the rickshaw forcibly has also not been proved by the

prosecution. The fact remains that the entire allegation is

with respect to the threats given by the accused and also on

the fact that the accused have abused the complainant of his

caste, but the said fact has not been proved by the

prosecution by leading any cogent and convincing evidence to

prove its case qua the offence under Section 506(2) of the

IPC and/or Section 3(1)(10) of the Scheduled Castes and the

Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

8.4 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

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1393/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/03/2026

undefined

proved that the accused is guilty of an offence under the

Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of

Atrocities) Act, 1989.

8.5 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

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1393/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/03/2026

undefined

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 or to reiterate the reasons given by the

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1393/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/03/2026

undefined

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 the accused, the right of the accused to the benefit of any doubt and the slowness of appellate Court in

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1393/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/03/2026

undefined

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

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

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1393/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/03/2026

undefined

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 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

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1393/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/03/2026

undefined

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 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/1393/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/03/2026

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

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1393/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/03/2026