Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 110 (GUJ)

State of Gujarat v. Visaji Dungraji Gohil

2025-02-13

S.V.PINTO

body2025
JUDGMENT : 1. The present appeal is filed by the appellant State under Section 378(1)(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the judgement and order of acquittal passed by the learned Presiding Officer and Additional Sessions Judge, 2 nd Fast Track Court, Deesa Camp at Deodar (hereinafter referred to as “the learned Trial Court”) in Sessions Case No. 64/2007 on 29.08.2009, whereby, the learned Trial Court has acquitted the respondents extending benefit of doubt for the offence punishable under Sections 323, 506(2) and 114 of IPC. 1.1 The respondents are hereinafter referred to as “the accused” as they stood in the original case for the sake of convenience, clarity and brevity. 2. The brief facts that emerge from the record of the case are as under: 2.1 The complainant - Sarangiji Vaghji Solanki Rajput is the Chairman of Relochi Group Seva Sahkari Mandali and on 12.06.2005 at around 09.00 am, the Annual General Meeting as per the agenda was arranged at Budheshwar Mahadev Mandir. The members including Ramjibhai Vaghjibhai Solanki, Hataji Govindji Solanki and Pravin Sarangji were present and Visaji Dungarji Gohil was asked to read the accounts and at that time, he stated that the old resolution book was filled up and the resolution book was at his house. They told him to bring the resolution book from his house and after he brought the book, he started making lines in the resolution book and when he was restrained from doing so, Secretary Visaji, Mulji Jivaji Gohil, Bhojaji Jivaji Gohil and Rataji Jivaji Gohil took the book and started walking away. That they were stopped and Mulji Jivaji Gohil took a knife and Rataji Jivaji Gohil had a stick and they came to assault the complainant but Ramjibhai Vaghiji, Nathaji Govindji and Pravin Sarangji were with him and hence, they did not say anything but threatened to kill the complainant and as other persons intervened, everyone was sent home. The complainant filed the complaint with Vav Police Station which was registered at C.R. No. II - 3029 of 2005 on 12.06.2005 under Sections 323, 506(2) and 114 of IPC. 2.2 The Investigating Officer recorded the statements of the connected witnesses and seized the necessary documents and after completion of investigation, a charge- sheet came to be filed before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Vav. 2.2 The Investigating Officer recorded the statements of the connected witnesses and seized the necessary documents and after completion of investigation, a charge- sheet came to be filed before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Vav. A complaint under the Prevention of Atrocities (Scheduled Caste and Schedule Tribes) Act was filed by the accused no. 1 against the complainant and other witnesses which was registered at Vav Police Station I – C.R. No. 24 of 2005 and the chargesheet was filed before the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Vav which came to be committed to the Sessions Court Deesa Camp at Deodar as the matter under the Atrocity Act was exclusively triable by the Special Court, Deesa at Deodar. As this case was a cross case and had to be tried along with the case filed under the Atrocity Act, the case was committed to the Sessions Court, Palanpur and was registered as Sessions Case No. 64 of 2007 and was transferred to the Court of the Additional Session Judge and 2 nd Fast Track Court, Deesa camp at Deodar and was registered as Special Atrocity Case No. 17/2007. 2.3 The accused was duly served with the summons and the accused appeared before the learned Trial Court and it was verified whether the copies of all the police papers were provided to the accused as per the provisions of Section 207 of the Code and a charge at Exh. 4 was framed against the accused and the statements of the accused were recorded at Exhs. 5 to 10, wherein, the accused denied the contents of the charge and the entire evidence of the prosecution was taken on record. 2.4 The prosecution produced the following evidence to bring home the charge against the accused. ORAL EVIDENCE S. No. PW Name of the witness Exh. 1 1 Sarangji Vaghji Solanki 13 2 2 Nagjibhai Keshrabhai Rabari 18 3 3 Parbatbhai Bhagwanbhai Rabari 20 4 4 Ganeshbhai Rupsibhai 22 5 5 Pravinbhai Sarangjibhai Solanki 30 6 6 Parmabhai Hirabhai 42 7 7 Mahendrasinh Ghanshyamsinh Vaghela 48 DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE Sr. No. Name of the witness Exh. ORAL EVIDENCE S. No. PW Name of the witness Exh. 1 1 Sarangji Vaghji Solanki 13 2 2 Nagjibhai Keshrabhai Rabari 18 3 3 Parbatbhai Bhagwanbhai Rabari 20 4 4 Ganeshbhai Rupsibhai 22 5 5 Pravinbhai Sarangjibhai Solanki 30 6 6 Parmabhai Hirabhai 42 7 7 Mahendrasinh Ghanshyamsinh Vaghela 48 DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE Sr. No. Name of the witness Exh. 1 Complaint 14 2 Panchnama 19 3 Panchnama 23 4 Station Diary 43 5 Report 44 2.5 After the learned APP filed the closing pursis, the further statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 were recorded, wherein, the accused denied all the evidence of the prosecution on record. The accused refused to step into the witness box or examine witnesses on their behalf and stated that a false case has been filed against them. After the arguments of the learned APP and the learned advocate for the accused were heard, the learned Trial Court by the impugned judgement and order was pleased to extend the benefit of doubt and acquit the accused from the charges levelled against them. 3. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said judgment and order of acquittal, the appellant - State has filed the present appeal mainly stating that the impugned judgment and order of acquittal passed by the learned Trial Court is contrary to law and evidence on record and the learned Trial Court has not appreciated the fact that all the witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution and during the cross-examination, nothing adverse has been elicited in favor of the respondents. The case has been proved beyond reasonable doubt and the prosecution has successfully established the case against the respondents and the judgment and order of acquittal is unwarranted, illegal, and without any basis in the eyes of the law and the reasons stated while acquitting the respondent are improper, perverse and bad in law. Hence the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Trial Court deserves to be quashed and set aside. 4. Heard learned APP Mr. Bhargav Pandya for the appellant State and learned advocate Mr. V.C. Vaghela for the respondents. Perused the impugned judgement and order of acquittal and have reappreciated the entire evidence of the prosecution on record of the case. 5. Learned APP Mr. 4. Heard learned APP Mr. Bhargav Pandya for the appellant State and learned advocate Mr. V.C. Vaghela for the respondents. Perused the impugned judgement and order of acquittal and have reappreciated the entire evidence of the prosecution on record of the case. 5. Learned APP Mr. Bhargav Pandya has taken this Court through the entire evidence of the prosecution on record of the case and submitted that the prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable doubts and the witnesses have narrated how the incident had occurred and natural witnesses are examined to prove the case. The prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable doubts and learned APP has urged this Court to allow the appeal as the impugned judgement and order is improper, perverse and bad in law and quash and set aside the same and find the respondents guilty for the offences. 6. Learned advocate Mr. V.C. Vaghela for the respondents has submitted that the learned Trial Court has appreciated all the evidences and has passed the impugned judgement and order of acquittal which is just and proper and no interference is required in the same. Learned advocate for the respondents has urged this Court to reject the appeal of the appellants. 7. At the outset, before discussing the facts of the present case, it would be appropriate to refer to the observations of the Apex Court in the case of Chandrappa & Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka, 2007 (4) SCC415, wherein, the Apex Court has observed as under: Recently, in Kallu Vs. State of M.P., (2006) 10 SCC 313 , this Court stated: "While deciding an appeal against acquittal, the power of the Appellate Court is no less than the power exercised while hearing appeals against conviction. In both types of appeals, the power exists to review the entire evidence. However, one significant difference is that an order of acquittal will not be interfered with, by an appellate court, where the judgment of the trial court is based on evidence and the view taken is reasonable and plausible. It will not reverse the decision of the trial court merely because a different view is possible. The appellate court will also bear in mind that there is a presumption of innocence in favour of the accused and the accused is entitled to get the benefit of any doubt. It will not reverse the decision of the trial court merely because a different view is possible. The appellate court will also bear in mind that there is a presumption of innocence in favour of the accused and the accused is entitled to get the benefit of any doubt. Further if it decides to interfere, it should assign reasons for differing with the decision of the trial court". From the above decisions, in our considered view, the following general principles regarding powers of 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 Code of Criminal Procedure, 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 emphasize 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 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. 8. The law with regard to acquittal appeals is well crystallized and in acquittal appeals, there is presumption of innocence in favour of the accused and it has finally culminated when a case ends in an acquittal. 8. The law with regard to acquittal appeals is well crystallized and in acquittal appeals, there is presumption of innocence in favour of the accused and it has finally culminated when a case ends in an acquittal. The learned Trial Court has appreciated all the evidence and when the learned Trial Court has come to a conclusion that the prosecution has not proved the case beyond reasonable doubts, the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused gets strengthened. There is no inhibition to reappreciate the evidence by the Appellate Court but if after re appreciation, the view taken by the learned Trial Court was a possible view, there is no reason for the Appellate Court to interfere in the same. 9. In light of the above settled principle of law, the evidence of the prosecution is dissected and the prosecution has examined PW1 – Sarangji Vaghji Solanki at Exh. 13. The witness is the complainant who has fully supported the case of the prosecution and has narrated all the facts stated in the complaint and has identified the accused before the learned Trial Court. During the cross- examination, the witness has stated that in the complaint, he has not stated that Parbat Bhagwan Rabari, Panchaji Vihaji Gohil and Ganesh Roopsinh intervened and released them. That every revenue village has a separate Seva Sahkari Mandali and Budheshwar Mahadev Mandir is about hundred metres away from his residence. That the house of Visaji Dungarji is about hundred metres away from Budheshwar Mahadev Mandir and the house of accused - Malaji is at a distance of about half a kilometer away. That he and Malaji Sadaji had stood for the election of the Sarpanch in the year 2002 and when the meeting started, he had snatched away the resolution book from accused Visaji. 9.1 The prosecution has examined PW2 – Nagjibhai Keshrabhai Rabari at Exh. 18 and the witness is the panch witness of the place of offence produced at Exh. 19. 9.2 The prosecution has examined PW3 – Parbatbhai Bhagwanbhai Rabari at Exh. 20 and the witness has stated that he was present in the meeting at Budheshwar Mahadev Mandir and Secretary Visaji Dungarji was asked by the Chairman to bring the books and read, and he was told that the books were filled up and were at his house. 19. 9.2 The prosecution has examined PW3 – Parbatbhai Bhagwanbhai Rabari at Exh. 20 and the witness has stated that he was present in the meeting at Budheshwar Mahadev Mandir and Secretary Visaji Dungarji was asked by the Chairman to bring the books and read, and he was told that the books were filled up and were at his house. That the books were brought and Secretary Dungarji made some cancellations in the book and when he was restrained Mulji Jivaji, Bhojaji Jivaji and Rataji Jivaji took the books and threatened them. That everyone gathered and restrained them from further fighting and thereafter, everyone went home. During the cross-examination by the learned advocate for the accused, the witness has stated that there were about 40 to 50 persons in the Mandir. 9.3 The prosecution has examined PW4 – Ganeshbhai Rupsibhai at Exh. 22 and he has stated that he was present at the meeting at Budheshwar Mahadev Mandir and the Chairman had asked for the resolution book and the Secretary told him that the book was filled up and thereafter, the Secretary brought the book but did not read it and started making some lines in the book and the Chairman told him not to make the lines when suddenly Muljibhai took a knife and threatened the Chairman. Ratilal had a stick in his hand and Malaji, Bhojaji and Jeevaji were present and Pachabhai and other persons intervened and sent them home. During the cross-examination, the witness has stated that no one had called him for the meeting but his field is near the Mandir and when he heard the commotion, he went to the Mandir. That he is not a member of Veluji Seva Sahkari Mandli and when he went, there, 60 to 70 persons were present there. 9.4 The prosecution has examined PW5 – Pravinbhai Sarangji Solanki at Exh. 30 and the witness has fully supported the case of the prosecution. During the cross- examination by the learned advocate for the accused, the witness stated that their houses are across the road and Visaji Dungarji‘s house is about two minutes away from his house. That his father had stood for the election of Sarpanch and accused Malaji was his opponent and his father was defeated and Malaji was elected as the Sarpanch. That his father was an Inspector in the Banas Bank. That his father had stood for the election of Sarpanch and accused Malaji was his opponent and his father was defeated and Malaji was elected as the Sarpanch. That his father was an Inspector in the Banas Bank. 9.5 The prosecution has examined PW6 – Parmabhai Hirabhai at Exh. 42 and the witness was the PSO at Vav Police Station who has written down the complaint of the complainant and registered the complaint. 9.6 The prosecution has examined PW7 – Mahendrasinh Ghanshyamsinh Vaghela at Exh. 48 and the witness is the Investigating Officer who has narrated the procedure undertaken during investigation of the offence. During cross-examination, the witness has stated that the reason for the quarrel was not known during investigation and he had recorded the statements of the witnesses as named by Sarangaji. That many persons were present in the meeting and a case under the Atrocities Act was filed against the complainant. 10. On minute dissection of the entire evidence of the prosecution, as stated by the Investigating Officer, the reason for the quarrel is not known and it appears that as there was a case filed under the Atrocities Act against the complainant, the present complaint has been filed as a counter blast. The presence of the witnesses at the place of the incident is doubtful and the fact that accused - Muljibhai had a knife with him and Ratilalbhai had a stick with him, is not proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubts. The Investigating Officer has only recorded the statements of the witnesses named by the complainant and no independent witnesses have been examined before the learned Trial Court. That many people were present in the meeting but their evidence has not come on record and the presence of the accused at the place of incident and at the time of incident is not proved beyond reasonable doubt. The witnesses who are the close relatives of the complainant have supported the case of the prosecution but there are major contradictions in the evidence of all the witnesses which has rightly been considered at length by the learned Trial Court. 11. In view of the settled position of law in the decision of Chandrappa (supra), the learned Trial Court has appreciated the entire evidence in proper perspective and there does not appear to be any infirmity and illegality in the impugned judgment and order of acquittal. 11. In view of the settled position of law in the decision of Chandrappa (supra), the learned Trial Court has appreciated the entire evidence in proper perspective and there does not appear to be any infirmity and illegality in the impugned judgment and order of acquittal. The learned Trial Court has appreciated all the evidence and this Court is of the considered opinion that the learned Trial Court was completely justified in acquitting the accused of the charges leveled against them. The findings recorded by the learned Trial Court are absolutely just and proper and no illegality or infirmity has been committed by the learned Trial Court and this Court is in complete agreement with the findings, ultimate conclusion and the resultant order of acquittal recorded by the learned Trial Court. This Court finds no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment and order and the present appeal is devoid of merits and resultantly, the same is dismissed. 12. The impugned judgement and order of acquittal passed by the learned Presiding Officer and Additional Sessions Judge, 2 nd Fast Track Court, Deesa Camp at Deodar in Sessions Case No. 64/2007 on 29.08.2009, is hereby confirmed. 13. Bail bond stands cancelled. Record and proceedings be sent back to the concerned Trial Court forthwith.