Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 153 (GUJ)

Jeram @ Jerajbhai Karshanbhai v. State of Gujarat

2025-02-25

S.V.PINTO

body2025
JUDGMENT : S.V. PINTO, J. 1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant- original complainant under Section 14-A of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities), Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as Atrocities Act) against the judgement and order of acquittal passed on 03/10/2023 by the learned Special Judge (ATRO) & 2 nd Additional Sessions Judge, Morbi (hereinafter referred to as "the learned Trial Court") in Special (ATRO) Case No. 12 of 2016, whereby, the learned Trial Court has acquitted the respondents for the offence punishable under Sections 323, 504, 506(2) and 114 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as the IPC) and Section 3(1)(r)(s), 3(2)(5-a) of the Atrocities Act . 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 That the complainant Jerambhai @ Jerajbhai Karsanbhai Parmar has filed the complaint on 26-02-2016 at 23:30 Hrs., stating that at around 07:30 pm, on the same day, he was at the food grain shop of Hasubhai Savjibhai Chotaliya in his village and at that time, the accused No. 2 Ruksanaben D/o Valimohamad Salemanbhai Theba came and had a verbal atercation with him and told him that he had purchased a stamp paper of her name and had cheated her of Rs.3,00,000/- and abused him and took her slipper and beat him on the head and the other accused Nos. 1 , 3 and 4 also abetted each other and threatened to kill him. The complainant filed the complaint on 26-02-2016 at Morbi Taluka Police Station under Sections 323, 504, 506(2) and 114 of the IPC and Sections 3(1)(r)(s), 3(2)(5-a) of the Atrocities Act, which was registered as II-C.R.No.3084 of 2016. 2.2 The Investigating Officer recorded the statements of the connected witnesses and seized the necessary documents and after completion of investigation, a chargesheet came to be filed before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Morbi and as the said offences against the accused were exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the case was committed to the Sessions Court, Morbi as per the provisions of Section 209 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and case was registered Special (ATRO) Case No. 12 of 2016. 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. 7 was framed against the accused and the statements of the accused were recorded at Exhs. 8 to 10 respectively, wherein, the accused denied all 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 Sr. No. P.W. Nos Name of the witnesses Exh. 1. 1. Jerambhai @ Jerajbhai Karsanbhai Parmar 13 2. 2. Hansaben Jerambhai Parmar 18 3. 3. Chhaganbhai Arjanbhai Parmar 19 4. 4. Ratilalbhai Bhanjibhai Parmar 20 5. 5. Daudbhai Milkhanbhai Rathod 25 6. 6. Vasrambhai Tadsibhai Chotaliya 27 7. 7. Shantilal Khimjibhai Badadkiya 42 8. 8. Yunusbhai Abdulbhai Kadiya 43 9. 9. Vinodbhai Machhabhai Bhudiya 44 10. 10. Hasmukhbhai Savjibhai Chotaliya 45 11. 11. Rajdeepsinh Narayansinh Zala 53 DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE Sr. No. Particulars Exh. 1. Complaint 14 2. Caste Certificate 15 3. Panchnama of scene of offence 39 4. Arrest panchnama 40 5. Appointment order of Investigating Officer 54 2.5 After the learned Additional Public Prosecutor filed the closing pursis at Exh. 56, 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 Additional Public Prosecutor and the learned advocate for the accused were heard, the learned trial Court by the impugned judgment and order was pleased to acquit all the accused from all the charges leveled against him. 3. 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 judgment and order was pleased to acquit all the accused from all the charges leveled against him. 3. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said judgement and order of acquittal, the appellant - original complainant has filed the present appeal mainly stating that the impugned judgement 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 favour of the respondents. The case has been proved beyond reasonable doubts and the prosecution has successfully established the case against the respondents and the judgement and order of acquittal is unwarranted, illegal and without any basis in the eyes of 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 advocate Mr. Manoj Shrimali appearing for the original complainant, learned APP Mr. Bhargav Pandya for the respondent-State. Perused the impugned judgement and order of acquittal and have reappreciated the entire evidence of the prosecution on record of the case. 5. Learned advocate Mr. Manoj Shrimali for the original complainant has taken this Court through the entire evidence of the prosecution on record of the case and has submitted that the prosecution has produced oral evidences of nine witnesses and fifteen documentary evidences but the learned trial Court has not appreciated the evidence and has wrongly come to the conclusion that the prosecution has not proved the case beyond reasonable doubts. The reasons given by the learned trial Court are shaky and there are no cogent reasons to arrive at the conclusion that the charge against the accused are not proved. The learned trial Court has not appreciated the entire evidence in proper perspective. Learned APP has urged this Court that the impugned judgement and order is improper, perverse and bad in law and is required to be quashed and set aside. 6. The learned trial Court has not appreciated the entire evidence in proper perspective. Learned APP has urged this Court that the impugned judgement and order is improper, perverse and bad in law and is required to be quashed and set aside. 6. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State has submitted that the learned Trial Court has appreciated all the evidences and passed the judgement and order of acquittal which is just and proper and no interference is required in the same and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent-state has urged this court to reject the appeal of the appellant. Learned APP has further submitted that as per the communication dated 20-03-2024 of the Legal Department, the State has decided not to challenge the impugned judgment and order of acquittal. 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 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 v. State of M.P., (2006) 10 SCC 313 : AIR 2006 SC 831 , 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". (emphasis supplied) 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. That 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. That 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 light on the above settled principles of law and considering the evidence on the prosecution, to bring home the charge against the accused, the prosecution has examined Prosecution Witness No. 1 Jerambhai @ Jerajbhai Karshanbhai Parmar at Exh. 13 and the witness is the complainant, who has stated that the incident has occurred on 26-02- 2016 and he had gone to the food grain shop of Hasmukhbhai Savjibhai Chotaliya and Shantilal Mistry, Daudbhai Milkhanbhai, Yunusbhai Adbulbhai Rasulbhai Sulemanbhai, Tulsibhai Goswami, Vinodbhai Bharwad and Chhaganbhai Arjanbhai were present with him. That, at that time, the accused No. 2 came and told him that he had taken Rs.3,00,000/- on a stamp and started assaulting him with her slipper and abused him and the other accused also came and started shouting at him and assaulting him. That they also threatened to kill him and thereafter they left the place and went away. That he had filed the complaint which is produced at Exh. 14 and his caste certificate is produced at Exh. 15.During the cross-examination by the learned advocate for the accused, the witness has stated that the house of the accused No. 2 is near his house and the field of the accused is also near his field. That he had purchased some stamp paper in the name of the accused No. 2 from a stamp vendor at Morbi Seva Sadan for Rs.100/- even though the accused No. 2 did not instruct him to get the stamp paper in her name. That he had purchased some stamp paper in the name of the accused No. 2 from a stamp vendor at Morbi Seva Sadan for Rs.100/- even though the accused No. 2 did not instruct him to get the stamp paper in her name. That he does not know what writing was done on the stamp paper and as it came to the knowledge of the the accused No. 2 that he had purchased the stamp without her consent, she had asked him that why he had purchased the stamp paper in her name. That, Ratilal Bhanjibhai, Savjibhai Tadsibhai, Bijalbhai Ranabhai, Chhaganbhai Arjanbhai and his wife had gone to file the complaint and the police has recorded the statement of the witnesses in the village. 9.1 The prosecution has examined Prosecution Witness No. 2 Hansaben Jerambhai Parmar at Exh: 18 and this witnesses is the wife of the complainant, who has stated that she is not an eye witness to the incident but in the evening she came to know from her husband that the accused No. 2 had beaten her husband with her slipper two to three times near the shop of Hasubhai. That the accused threatned to kill her husband and has also used caste-slurs on her husband and after discussing with her, her husband had decied to file police complaint. The reason for the incident was that the accused No. 2 asked her husband why her husband had purchased the stamp paper in her name. That they had decided to file the complaint and went to Morbi Taluka Police Station where her husband had filed the complaint.During the cross-examination by the learned advocate for the accused, the witness has stated that she was not present at the place of incident and she does not know what had occurred and the complainant is her husband. 9.2 The prosecution has examined Prosecution Witness No. 3 Chhaganbhai Arjanbhai Parmar at Exh: 19 and this witness has stated that the incident had occurred on 26-02-2016 and as a commotion took place , he ran to the shop of Hasubhai and saw the accused No. 2 hitting his uncle Jerambhai with her slipper two to three times. That the accused No. 3 was abusing his uncle and the accused Nos. 1 and 4 also came and they had separated them. That the accused No. 3 was abusing his uncle and the accused Nos. 1 and 4 also came and they had separated them. The incident occurred because of the stamp paper of Rs.100/- and all the accused used caste-slurs against his uncle. During the cross-examination by the learned advocate for the accused, the witness has stated that he had come to the Court along with his uncle for deposition and he knows the accused as they are from the same village. That when the police came to record his statement, the complainant was also present and there was a verbal altercation between his uncle and the accused No.2. 9.3 The prosecution has examined Prosecution Witness No. 4 Ratilalbhai Bhanjibhai Parmar at Exh: 20 and this witness has stated that, at the time of incidnet, he was at his home and as he heard a commottion outside he walked and went to the Chowk where there were many persons present. That he took Jerambhai and came away and Jerambhai told him that he wanted to go Morbi and he took Jerambhai to Morbi. That the accused No. 2 hit her slipper on Jerambhai and beside this, he does not know any other details. That they went to Morbi Taluka Police Station where Jerambhai gave the complaint.During the cross-examination by the learned advocate for the accused, the witness has stated that when he went near the Chowk, after hearing the commotion, he saw Jerambhai coming from the opposite direction and he went back home. That he was not an eye witness to the incident and as the village is a small village, every body is known to each other. 9.4 The prosecution has examined Prosecution Witness No. 5 Daudbhai Milkhanbhai Rathod at Exh: 25 and as per the case of the prosecution, the witness is an eye-witness to the incident but the witness has stated that he knows the complainant and the accused but he does not know any details about the complaint. The witness has not supported the case of the prosecution and has been declared hostile and has been cross- examined by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and nothing to support the case of the prosecution, has come on record. 9.5 The prosecution has examined Prosecution Witness No. 6 Vashrambhai Tadsibhai Chotaliya at Exh. The witness has not supported the case of the prosecution and has been declared hostile and has been cross- examined by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and nothing to support the case of the prosecution, has come on record. 9.5 The prosecution has examined Prosecution Witness No. 6 Vashrambhai Tadsibhai Chotaliya at Exh. 27 and the witness is also an eye-witness as per the case of the prosecution and the witness has stated that 26- 02-2016 at around 07:00 pm, the accused No. 2 hit a slipper on the complainant and used caste-slurs against him. That, when the accused No.2 hit the complainant, he ran and at that time, the other accused came and caught the complainant. That he does not know the reason for the incident but as he was passing by, the accused were assaulting the complainant. That they had come to the shop and while he was coming out of the shop, they had assaulted him. The witness has not supported the case of the prosecution and has been declared hostile and has been cross-examined by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor at length, but nothing to support the case of the prosecution has come on record.The witness has also stated that he has problems in his eyes and he would be able to identify the accused only from a close range.During the cross examination by the learned advocate for the accused, the witness has stated that the complainant and his wife had accompanied him to the Court on the date of the incident and he has problems in his eyes since last two years. That the complainant had stood in the elections for the post of Sarpanch and the accused No. 2 had also stood for the election. That his family daughter Harsidaben had married the son of the accused No.1 and he has good relation with the complainant. 9.6 The prosecution has examined Prosecution Witness No. 7 Shantilal Khimjibhai Badadkiya at Exh. 42 and as per the case of the prosecution, the witness is an eye-witness to the incident but he has stated that he had seen the complainant and the accused No.2 fighting with each other but he did not hear anything and does not know what was the quarrel about. 42 and as per the case of the prosecution, the witness is an eye-witness to the incident but he has stated that he had seen the complainant and the accused No.2 fighting with each other but he did not hear anything and does not know what was the quarrel about. The witness has been declared hostile and has been cross examined at length by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor but nothing to support the case of the prosecution has come on record. 9.7 The prosecution has examined Prosecution Witness No. 8 Yunusbhai Abdulbhai Kadiya at Exh. 43 and as per the case of the prosecution the witness is an eye-witness but he has stated that at the time of the incident, he had gone to the shop for purchasing something and he does not know between whom was the fight taking place.The accused No. 2 is his uncle’s daughter and the witness has been declared hostile and has cross examined at length by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor but nothing to support the case of the prosecution has come on record. 9.8 The prosecution has examined Prosecution Witness No. 9 Vinodbhai Machhabhai Bhudiya at Exh. 44 and the witness, as per the case of the prosecution, is an eye-witness but he has not supported the case of the prosecution and has categorically stated that there was a fight between the complainant and the accused but he does not know anything about the same. The witness has been declared hostile and has been cross examined at length by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor but nothing to support the case of the prosecution has come on record. 9.9 The prosecution has examined Prosecution Witness No. 10 Hasmukhbhai Savjibhai Chotaliya at Exh. 45 and the witness, as per the case of the prosecution, is an eye-witness but he has stated that, at the time of the incident, Rasulbhai, Yunusbhai Daudbhai and Jerambhai were sitting and Rukshanaben, Izajbhai, Aminaben and Jusabhai came and they had a fight and Rukshanaben took a slipper and assaulted Jerambhai.During the cross examination by the learned advocate for the accused, the witness has stated that he has good relations with the complainant- Jerambhai for many years and he comes to the court on every date with Jerambhai. 9.10 The prosecution has examined Prosecution Witness No. 11 Rajdeepsinh Narayansinh Zala at Exh. 9.10 The prosecution has examined Prosecution Witness No. 11 Rajdeepsinh Narayansinh Zala at Exh. 53 and the witness is the Investigating Officer, who has narrated in detail all the procedure that was undertaken by him during the investigation.During the cross-examination by the learned advocate for the accused, the witness has stated stated that the complainant had discussed about filing the complaint at home and thereafter had filed the complaint after a delay of about four hours and as the complainant discussed about filing of the complaint, there was a possibilities that a false complaint can be filed. That he has not investigated about the stamp paper of Rs.100/-, which was produced by the complainant in the name of Rukshanaben. 10. On minute dissection of the entire evidence of the prosecution, as per the case of the prosecution and as per the complaint, the incident had occurred in front of the food grain shop of Hasubhai Savjibhai Chotaliya and at that time, Shantilal Mistry, Daudbhai Milkhanbhai, Yunusbhai Abdulabhai, Rasulbhai Sulemanbhai, Tulsibhai Gauswami, Vinodbhai Bharwad and Chhaganbhai Arjanbhai were present and they are eye- witnesses to the incident. Prosecution Witness No. 2 Hansaben Jerambhai Parmar is the wife of the complainant Jerambhai Parmar but she is not an eye-witness to the incident though she has stated that her husband had told her about the incident when he came in the evening and they discussed about the filing of the complaint and thereafter went to Morbi Taluka Police Station to file complaint. The eye-witnesses Prosecution Witness No. 5 Daudbhai Milkhanbhai Rathod, Prosecution Witness No. 6 - Vasrambhai Tadsibhai Chotaliya, Prosecution Witness No. 7 - Shantilal Khimjibhai Badadkiya, Prosecution Witness No. 8 - Yunusbhai Abdulbhai Kadiya and Prosecution Witness No. 9 - Vinodbhai Machhabhai Bhudiya have all been declared hostile before the learned trial Court and they have not supported thc case of the prosecution. Prosecution Witness No. 3 - Chhaganbhai Arjanbhai Parmar is the nephew of the complainant, who has stated that there was only a verbal altercation between his uncle and the accused No. 2 and beside this, nothing else has occurred. The incident has occurred at the shop of Hasmukhbhai Savjibhai Chotaliya - Prosecution Witness No. 10 but during the cross-examination, he has admitted that he has good relations with the complainant. The incident has occurred at the shop of Hasmukhbhai Savjibhai Chotaliya - Prosecution Witness No. 10 but during the cross-examination, he has admitted that he has good relations with the complainant. Admittedly, the incident has occurred as the complainant purchased stamp of Rs.100/- in the name of the accused No. 2 and the accused No. 2 had inquired from him as to why he had purchased a stamp paper of Rs.100/- in her name and he had taken Rs.3,00,000/-. The Investigating Officer - Prosecution Witness No. 11 Rajdeepsinh Naransinh Zala has not investigated about this angle and hence it has not come on record as to whether actually the stamp paper was purchased by the complainant in the name of the accused No. 2 without her consent and instructions. The complainant himself has admitted that he has purchased a Non Judicial stamp paper of Rs.100/- without her consent and Rafik had written something on the stamp paper but the stamp paper has not been seized by the Investigating Officer during investigation. Besides the say of the complainant, there is nothing on record to suggest that the incident has occurred and it appears that the complainant has made allegations that the accused No. 2 assaulted him with the slippers but his nephew Prosecution Witness No. 3 Arjabhai Chhaganbhai Parmar has stated that there was only a simple altercation between his uncle and the accused No. 2. The complainant has not stated exact words that were used by the accused and he has merely stated that all the accused used caste-slurs, abused him and threatened to kill him but it cannot be said that all the accused would use exactly the same words or they would speak exactly at the same time to abuse or threaten to kill the complainant. Moreover, the caste certificate of the complainant has been produced in the deposition of the complainant and it appears that the Investigating Officer has not investigated as to whether the complainant is in fact, a member of the scheduled castes as stated by him. 11. In view of the settled position of law in the decisions 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 decisions 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 on 03/10/2023 by the learned Special Judge (ATRO) & 2 nd Additional Sessions Judge, Morbi in Special (ATRO) Case No. 12 of 2016, is hereby confirmed. 13. Bail bond stands cancelled. Record and proceedings be sent back to the concerned Trial Court forthwith.