Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 1193 (GUJ)

State of Gujarat v. Mahipatsinh Gambhirsinh Gohil

2025-10-06

S.V.PINTO

body2025
JUDGMENT : S.V. PINTO, J. 1. The appeal is filed by the appellant State under Section 3 78 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the judgement and order of acquittal passed by the learned Special Judge, Bhavnagar (hereinafter referred to as “the learned Trial Court”) in Special (Atrocity) Case No. 22/2010 on 19.05.2012 whereby, the learned Trial Court has acquitted the respondents for the offence punishable under Sections 3 23 , 447, 504, 506(2) and 114 of INDIAN PENAL CODE , 1860 and Sections 3 (1)(10) of Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as “the Atrocity Act” for short). 1.1 The respondents are hereinafter referred to as “the accused” in the rank and file 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 accused no. 1 was the Sarpanch of Randola Gram Panchayat and on 01.05.2010 at around 21.00 hours, the complainant and his brother Laljibhai were in their house and with reference to the setting up of the Anganwadi in their plot, the accused got agitated and started abusing the complainant and assaulted the complainant with fists. The accused also hurled derogatory caste slurs against the complainant and the complainant filed a complaint at the Palitana Rural Police Station under Sections 3 23 , 504, 506(2) and 114 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE , 1860 and Section 3 (1)(10) of the Atrocity Act which came to be registered at Palitana Rural Police Station II-C.R. No. 18 of 2010. 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 Court of the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Palitana and as the said offences against the accused were exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the case was committed to the Sessions Court, Bhavnagar as per the provisions of Section 209 of Code of Criminal Procedure and the case was registered as Special (Atrocity) Case No. 22/2010. 2.3 The accused were 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. A charge at Exh. 6 was framed against the accused and the statements of the accused was recorded at Exhs. 7, 8, 9 and 10 respectively, wherein, the accused denied the contents of the charge and the entire evidence of the prosecution was taken on record. 2.4 The prosecution examined 6 witnesses and produced 7 documentary evidences on record in support of their case and after the learned Additional Public Prosecutor filed the closing pursis, the further statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was recorded. After the arguments of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and the learned advocate for the accused were heard, the learned Trial Court by the impugned judgement and order was pleased to acquit all 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 doubts 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 Ms. C.M. Shah for the appellant State and learned advocate Mr. Premal Joshi for the respondent nos. 1 to 4. 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 Ms. 4. Heard learned APP Ms. C.M. Shah for the appellant State and learned advocate Mr. Premal Joshi for the respondent nos. 1 to 4. 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 Ms. C.M. Shah has taken this Court through the entire evidence of the prosecution on record of the case and submitted that the complainant has fully supported the facts of his complaint. The impugned judgement and order is perverse and learned APP has urged this Court to quash and set aside the same and find the respondent guilty for the offences. 6. Learned advocate Mr. Premal Joshi for the respondent nos. 1 to 4 has submitted that the learned Trial Court has appreciated the evidence and passed the impugned judgement and order and no interference is required hence, the appeal may be rejected. 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 regarding the scope of interference in acquittal appeals in the case of Chandrappa & Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka, 2007 (4) SCC 415 , 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. Further if it decides to interfere, it should assign reasons for differing with the decision of the trial court". 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 re appreciate 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 view of the settled principles of law, the evidence on record is appreciated and to prove the offence against the accused, the prosecution has in all examined six witnesses. PW1 – Mohanbhai Bhikhabhai Makwana examined at Exh. 12 is the complainant who has stated that persons from the Darbar Community had come and assaulted him and his wife Naniben. He had a plot in Randola village and the Sarpanch wanted to make an Anganwadi in that plot but he refused. The incident had occurred at night and Ketansinh, Dabrubhai, Narsinhbhai and Bhawanbhai had assaulted him. They did not speak anything and he had filed the complaint which is produced at Exh. 13. As the accused had slapped his wife, her gold earring flew off and his father and mother came to intervene but the accused started hitting him with fists and they did not say anything. In the cross-examination, the witness has admitted that there is a water shortage during summer in their village and it is the responsibility of the Panchayat to repair the well for water and a motor is placed on the well and at the time of the incident, with the help of many persons, the motor was placed. The witness has admitted that Harjibhai Babariya is a member of the Gram Panchayat and there are many cross-complaints filed against him and the resolution for the Anganwadi was passed on 25.06.2008. The Anganwadi was at quiet a distance from his place and he had taken treatment at the Government Hospital, Palitana. 9.1 PW2 – Naniben Mohanbhai Makwana examined at Exh. The Anganwadi was at quiet a distance from his place and he had taken treatment at the Government Hospital, Palitana. 9.1 PW2 – Naniben Mohanbhai Makwana examined at Exh. 14 is the wife of the complainant who has supported the case of the complaint. She has stated that at the time of the incident, her earring was lost and the accused had broken their pots and had pulled her husband. Her father- in-law, mother-in-law and brother-in-law had intervened and the accused had thrown them down. In the cross- examination, the witness has admitted that her brothers- in-law, she and her husband had all gone to the Police Station and their complaint was not taken at the Palitana Police Station. The witness has admitted that on the previous day, the work of the well was going on with the help of many persons but has denied that her husband had quarrelled with the Sarpanch at that time. The witness has admitted that the Sarpanch had given an application against her husband on 01.05.2010 and has admitted that an application was given to the Mamlatdar that her husband had burnt banyan trees, bawal trees and peepal trees. 9.2 PW3 – Piyushkumar Chandulal Gohel examined at Exh. 15 is the Principal of Randola Primary School and he has produced the leaving certificate of the complainant at Exh. 16. 9.3 PW4 – Harisinh Jethabhai Jankant examined at Exh. 17 is the Investigating Officer who has narrated the procedure undertaken by him during investigation. In the cross-examination, the witness has admitted that the complainant did not produce any caste certificate and he did not record the statements of any witnesses regarding the caste of the complainant. The Anganwadi had started in the year 2008 and there was no movement of the members of the Gram Panchayat or any leaders to shift the Anganwadi. There was no evidence that the Anganwadi was to be constructed in the plot of the complainant. The witness has also admitted that during investigation, it is found that the accused no. 1 - the Sarpanch and a number of persons had given an application with their signatures in the Police Station, wherein, it was stated that the complainant had threatened that he would file a case under the Atrocity Act against them. 9.4 PW5 – Siddhrajsinh Parakramsinh Gohil examined at Exh. 22 and PW6 – Gordhanbhai Premjibhai Makwana examined at Exh. 1 - the Sarpanch and a number of persons had given an application with their signatures in the Police Station, wherein, it was stated that the complainant had threatened that he would file a case under the Atrocity Act against them. 9.4 PW5 – Siddhrajsinh Parakramsinh Gohil examined at Exh. 22 and PW6 – Gordhanbhai Premjibhai Makwana examined at Exh. 24 are the panch witnesses of the panchnama of the place of offence which is produced at Exh. 23. Both the witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution. 10. One minute appreciation of the entire evidence of the prosecution. As per the case of the prosecution, the incident has occurred on 01.05.2010 at around 09.00 pm and the incident has occurred in the house of the complainant which is not a place in public view. The complainant has given a typed complaint on the next day at the Palitana Rural Police Station and it has emerged on record that the accused no. 1 who is the Sarpanch of Randola Gram Panchayat had placed a motor on the well for the water supply to the persons in the village and at that time the complainant had quarrelled with them. The accused no. 1 and others had given an application in the Police Station about the conduct of the complainant and if the evidence of the complainant and PW2 - Naniben Mohanbhai Makwana is perused, the complainant has not stated that any of the accused had abused or hurled caste slurs against him at the time of the incident. He has stated that he had taken treatment at the Government Hospital Palitana but no such evidence has come on record. PW2 - Naniben Mohanbhai Makwana is an eye witness to the incident and she supports the case of the prosecution to a certain extent but there appears to be major exaggeration in her deposition. She has stated that the accused had broke their pots but no such evidence has come on record. Moreover, as per the say of the complainant, his father, mother and his brother had also intervened but as per the say of PW2 - Naniben Mohanbhai Makwana they were pushed and thrown down but they have not been examined as witnesses before the learned Trial Court. Moreover, as per the say of the complainant, his father, mother and his brother had also intervened but as per the say of PW2 - Naniben Mohanbhai Makwana they were pushed and thrown down but they have not been examined as witnesses before the learned Trial Court. Admittedly, the place of offence is the house of the complainant and there must be neighbours but no such persons have been examined before the learned Trial Court. There are major contradictions in the deposition of the complainant and his wife and even as far as the caste certificate of the complainant is concerned, it is not produced on record. PW3 - Piyushkumar Chandulal Gohil has produced the school leaving certificate of the complainant but the Investigating Officer has categorically stated that he had asked the complainant to submit his caste certificate but the same has not been supplied and hence, no investigation has been done in this regard and he has not recorded the statements of any witnesses regarding the caste certificate of the complainant. 11. In view of the settled position of law, 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 Special Judge, Bhavnagar in Special (Atrocity) Case No. 22/2010 on 19.05.2012 is hereby confirmed. 13. Bail bond stands cancelled. Record and proceedings be sent back to the concerned Trial Court forthwith.