[Cites 12, Cited by 0]

Gujarat High Court

State Of Gujarat vs Mohamed @ Suleman Musabhai Vora Patel on 9 March, 2026

                                                                                                                           NEUTRAL CITATION




                            R/CR.A/1610/2012                                              JUDGMENT DATED: 09/03/2026

                                                                                                                           undefined




                                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                                               R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1610 of 2012

                       ==========================================================
                                               STATE OF GUJARAT
                                                     Versus
                                  MOHAMED @ SULEMAN MUSABHAI VORA PATEL & ANR.
                       ==========================================================
                       Appearance:
                       MR YUVRAJ BRAHMBHATT, APP for the Appellant(s) No. 1
                       MR PRAVIN GONDALIYA(1974) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1,2
                       ==========================================================

                          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 12.07.2012, passed by

the learned Special Judge, Bharuch, Camp at Ankleshwar, in

Special (Atrocity) Case No.8 of 2011, for the offences

punishable under Sections 504, 506() and 1140 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 Sessions Court, is that on 23.10.2010 at about

1:30 p.m., when the complainant was present at his home, at

that time, one Vijay Yatra of political Party passing in front

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1610/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/03/2026

undefined

of the house of the complainant and they ignited the

firecrackers and amongst them, one Suleman Musa Topiya

threw one firecracker in the compound of the complainant's

house and someone threw back from the compound, hence,

the accused asked the complainant as to why he threw back

from his compound. As a result, quarrel took place between

them, hence, the accused gave filthy abuses to the

complainant and threatened to kill him. In the said incident,

other accused Samad Musa Topiya also gave filthy abuses

relating to caste of the complainant. Thereby, the accused

persons with the help of each other committed an offence as

alleged. 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.8 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/1610/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/03/2026

undefined

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

has examined 8 witnesses and also produced 6 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

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1610/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/03/2026

undefined

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 filed on 23.10.2010 by the complainant -

Rupsingbhai Naginbhai Vasava, which has been produced vide

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1610/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/03/2026

undefined

Exh.11. It is the case of the prosecution that on 23.10.2010,

when there was a political rally, the firecracker bomb was

hurled in the lobby of the complainant and when someone

had kicked the said firecracker bomb out of the lobby of the

complainant's house, accused No.1 had informed that why the

firecracker bomb was kicked and thereafter, both the accused

started abusing the complainant of his caste.

8.2 The prosecution has examined the complainant viz.,

Rupsingbhai Naginbhai Vasava as P.W.1, vide Exh.10.

The other witness viz., Rameshbhai Khalpabhai

Vasava, who was present at the time of alleged incident as

per the complainant, has been examined as P.W.2, vide

Exh.12. In his examination-his chief, he has stated that he is

not aware that any threats were given by the accused to the

complainant. It is also stated that he has not said anything at the time of the alleged incident.

The other witness viz., Kalidas Naginbhai, who

happens to be the elder brother of the complainant, has been

examined as P.W.3, vide Exh.13.

The neighbour and the relative of the complainant

viz., Ushaben Prabhatbhai Vasava has been examined as

P.W.4, vide Exh.14.

The panch witness of the panchanama of scene of

offence (Exh.17), viz., Prabhatbhai Meghabhai Vasava has

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1610/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/03/2026

undefined

been examined as P.W.5, vide Exh.16. He has stated that he

has signed on the police paper prepared by the police and

other than that he is not aware of any of the facts of the

matter.

The P.S.O. - Dineshchandra Chandulal, who has

initially taken the complaint, has been examined as P.W.6,

vide Exh.18. Thereafter, the investigation was handed over to

the Dy.S.P. - Mayurdhwajsinh Natvarsinh Chauhan on

24.10.2010, who has been examined as P.W.7, vide Exh.20.

The Junior Clerk, TDO viz., Jahanara Sirajuddin

Shaikh has been examined as P.W.8, vide Exh.24. The said

witness is examined with respect to the caste certificate

which is produced vide Exh.22.

8.3 If the entire case of the prosecution is taken into consideration, it transpires that there was some dispute with

respect to the panchayat meeting between the complainant

and accused No.1. It further transpires that at the time of

the incident, he was the Deputy Sarpanch at Umarvada

Gram Panchayat and accused No.1 was a Sarpanch and

during the meeting, there was some opposition by the

complainant against the decision taken by accused No.1.

8.4 P.W.2 - Rameshbhai Vasava has also stated in his

cross-examination that there was some dispute with respect

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1610/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/03/2026

undefined

to the hand pump and the Grant that was to be taken with

respect to the development of the Panchayat. The fact

remains that there are lot of contradictions in the complaint

and the deposition of the complainant. The other factor which

has also been taken into consideration is that it has come on

the record that there is political rally and there were around

300-400 persons who had been present in the said rally, but

the prosecution has not been able to examine any

independent witnesses to prove its case. Moreover, the other

factor which has also been dealt with the learned Sessions

Court is that the complainant has stated that he is following

Christian religion. Moreover, the prosecution has also not

been able to prove that in view of the contradictions and

discrepancies in the oral evidence of the witnesses of the

complainant, who are closely related to him, the prosecution has not been able to prove that the accused had abused on

the caste of the complainant.

8.5 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

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1610/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/03/2026

undefined

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.

8.6 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

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1610/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/03/2026

undefined

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 Chaudhary (1967)1 SCR 93: (AIR 1967 SC 1124) that it is not the duty of the appellate court when it agrees with the

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1610/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/03/2026

undefined

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 proper weight and consideration to the view of the Trial Court with regard to the credibility of the witness, the presumption of

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1610/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/03/2026

undefined

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

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.

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1610/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/03/2026

undefined

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 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

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1610/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/03/2026

undefined

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 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

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1610/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/03/2026

undefined

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.

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

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1610/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/03/2026

undefined