Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 271 (GUJ)

State of Gujarat v. Chirag Manubhai Amin

2025-03-13

S.V.PINTO

body2025
JUDGMENT : (S.V. PINTO, J.) 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, FTC No. 1, Vadodara (hereinafter referred to as “the learned Trial Court”) in Atrocity Case No. 51/2008 on 19.03.2010, whereby, the learned Trial Court has acquitted the respondents for the offence punishable under Sections 143, 147, 149, 323, 504 and 114 of IPC and Section 135 of B.P. Act and Section 3(1)(10) of Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as “the Atrocities Act”). 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 On 29.08.2008, the complainant - Babubhai Dhanjibhai Rohit along with his uncle Chimanbhai and aunt Shantaben Chimanbhai had gone to their agricultural land situated on Tarsali - Chikhodra Road and bearing old survey no. 126 and at that time, the accused Chirag Manubhai Amin, Sandip Manubhai Amin Laxmanbhai Karshanbhai Rabari and four other persons came and hurled caste abuses at them and told them that the land did not belong to them and assaulted the complainant. The accused no. 1 - Chiragbhai Manubhai Amin gave four slaps to Chimanbhai, and as all the accused were armed with sticks and swords, the complainant and others ran away. Regular Civil Suit No. 642 of 2008 is pending about the agricultural land with Manubhai Maganbhai Amin and that was the reason for the accused to assault the complainant. The complainant filed the complaint before the Makarpura Police Station under Sections 143, 147, 149, 323, 504 and 114 of the IPC, Section 3(1)(10) of the Atrocity Act and Section 135 of the B.P. Act which was registered at I – C.R. No. 352 of 2008 on 29.08.2008. The complainant filed the complaint before the Makarpura Police Station under Sections 143, 147, 149, 323, 504 and 114 of the IPC, Section 3(1)(10) of the Atrocity Act and Section 135 of the B.P. Act which was registered at I – C.R. No. 352 of 2008 on 29.08.2008. 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 Judicial Magistrate First Class, Vadodara and as the said offences against the accused were exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the case was committed to the Sessions Court, Vadodara as per the provisions of Section 209 of Code of Criminal Procedure and the case was registered as Atrocity Case No. 51/2008. 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. 5 was framed against the accused and the statements of the accused were recorded at Exhs. 6 to 10 respectively, wherein, all 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 Sr. No. PW Name of the witness Exh. 1 1 Babubhai Dhanjibhai 12 2 2 Shantaben Chimanbhai Rohit 14 3 3 Jagubhai Vajabhai Bharwad 16 4 4 Govindbhai Shankarbhai Rabari 17 5 5 Maheshbhai Kantibhai Amin 19 6 6 Melabhai Ranubhai Bharwad 20 7 7 Danabhai Vihabhai Bharwad 22 8 8 Rameshbhai Punjabhai 23 9 9 Zalabhai Manjibhai Varsat 28 10 10 Kanjibhai Bhurabhai Damor 33 DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE Sr. No. Particulars Exh. 1 Complaint 13 2 Muddamaal Recovery Panchnama 18 3 Panchnama of place of offence 21 4 PSO Report 24 5 Station Diary 25 6 Caste Certificate of complainant 29 7 Report for addition of Sections 30 8 Publication 31 9 Pursis 32 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 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 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 Ms. Jirga Jhaveri, learned advocate and learned advocate Ms. Devarshi Shah 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 Ms. Jirga Jhaveri 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 and learned advocate has urged this Court to quashed and set aside the same and find the respondents guilty for the offences. 6. Learned advocate Ms. Devarshi Shah 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. Learned advocate Ms. Devarshi Shah 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 reported in 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". 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. 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 a 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 of the above settled principle of law, the evidence of the prosecution is dissected and the prosecution has examined the complainant as PW1 – Babubhai Dhanjibhai at Exh. 12 and the complainant has fully supported the contents of the complaint which are produced at Exh. 13. During the cross-examination by the learned advocate for the accused, the witness has admitted that there is a civil litigation regarding the same property pending between the parties and the agricultural land was in the joint names of his father and uncle. The land was partitioned between his father and uncle and block no. 13. During the cross-examination by the learned advocate for the accused, the witness has admitted that there is a civil litigation regarding the same property pending between the parties and the agricultural land was in the joint names of his father and uncle. The land was partitioned between his father and uncle and block no. 91/A came to the share of his uncle. That a sale deed was executed by his uncle Natubhai Chhitabhai Khalpa and Chimanbhai Madhabhai Khalpa and himself on 07.03.2008 and he had affixed his signature on the deed. The name of Manubhai was entered in the revenue record and Manubhai had filed Regular Civil Suit No. 642 of 2008 against him and had taken an injunction that he should not enter into the suit land and disturb his possession in the suit land. A criminal complaint registered at I – C.R. No. 353 of 2008 was filed at Makarpura Police Station against him and he was arrested and sent to the jail. 9.1 The prosecution has examined PW2 – Shantaben Chimanbhai Rohit at Exh. 15 and the witness is the wife of the complainant who has fully supported the case of the complainant. During the cross-examination by the learned advocate for the accused, the witness has admitted that a civil litigation is pending regarding the agricultural land and a criminal case was filed against her husband at the Makarpura Police Station and he was arrested and sent to jail and was thereafter released on bail. That her husband Chimanbhai had demanded more money from Madhuben and Madhuben’s husband had filed an atrocity case. 9.2 The prosecution has examined PW3 - Jagubhai Vajabhai Bharwad at Exh. 16 and the witness has stated that on the day of the incident, he had gone to the canal and he saw the accused assaulting Chimanbhai and abusing him. That they started abusing him and he went away. During the cross-examination by the learned advocate for the accused the witness has stated that he has not stated in his statement before the police that the accused were abusing the complainant and he has not stated that accused started abusing him. That he does not know the distance between Atladra and Tarsali. 9.3 The prosecution has examined PW4 – Govindbhai Shankarbhai Rabari at Exh. 17 and PW5 – Maheshbhai Kantibhai Amin at Exh. That he does not know the distance between Atladra and Tarsali. 9.3 The prosecution has examined PW4 – Govindbhai Shankarbhai Rabari at Exh. 17 and PW5 – Maheshbhai Kantibhai Amin at Exh. 19 and both the witnesses are the panch witnesses of arrest panchnama, whereby, the accused no. 1 - Chirag Manubhai Amin, accused no. 2 - Sandeepbhai Manubhai Amin and Laxmanbhai Krishanbhai Desai were arrested and one dhariya and two sticks were seized from them. Both the witnesses have stated that they were not called to Makarpura Police Station and they had merely affixed their signatures on the panchnama which is produced at Exh. 18. The witnesses have been declared hostile and have been cross examined by the learned APP. 9.4 The prosecution has examined PW6 – Melabhai Ranubhai Bharwad at Exh. 20 and PW7 – Danabhai Vihabhai Bharwad at Exh. 22 Both the witnesses are the panch witnesses of the place of offence which is produced at Exh. 21 and they have stated that they have affixed their signatures on the panchnama which was already prepared. 9.5 The prosecution has examined PW8 – Rameshbhai Punjabhai at Exh. 23 and the witness is the PSO who has registered the complaint of the complainant. 9.6 The prosecution has examined PW9 – Zalabhai Manjibhai Varsat at Exh. 28 and the witness is the Investigating Officer who has narrated the procedure that was undertaken by him during investigation. During the cross-examination by the learned advocate for the accused, the witness has stated that the incident was relating to the land between the parties and there was no evidence that there was any crop in the land at the time of the incident. That he did not investigate who was the owner of the land, but there were civil disputes before the civil court pending between the parties. 9.7 The prosecution has examined PW10 – Kanjibhai Bhurabhai Damor at Exh. 33 and the witness is the PSO who had recorded the complaint of the complainant and which is produced at Exh. 13. During the cross examination by the learned advocate for the accused, the witness stated that the father of the accused no. 1 – Chiragbhai Manubhai Amin had filed a complaint against the complainant and when the complainant filed the complaint under the Atrocity Act, no caste certificate was produced. 13. During the cross examination by the learned advocate for the accused, the witness stated that the father of the accused no. 1 – Chiragbhai Manubhai Amin had filed a complaint against the complainant and when the complainant filed the complaint under the Atrocity Act, no caste certificate was produced. The complaint was relating to the land but the complainant did not produce any evidence regarding ownership of the land. When Manubhai had filed the complaint, he had produced evidence about the disputed land and his ownership. 10. On minute dissection of the entire evidence of the prosecution, the facts that have emerged on record is that Regular Civil Suit No. 642 of 2008 was pending against the complainant and his uncle before the Civil Court at Vadodara and the learned Court had passed an injunction order restraining the complainant and others from entering into the land and disturbing the possession of the land of Manubhai Maganbhai Amin - the father of the accused no. 1. The name of Manubhai Maganbhai Amin was also entered in the revenue record and a sale deed was already executed by the complainant and others in favour of Manubhai Maganbhai Amin. In the deposition of PW2 Shantaben Chimanbhai Rohit, it has come on record that more money was demanded and as it was not given, the case under the Atrocity Act was filed. Moreover, Manubhai Maganbhai Amin had also filed a complaint against the complainant at the Makarpura Police Station and the complainant was arrested, sent to jail and was released on bail. There are no independent witnesses to the incident and the prosecution has not proved the case beyond reasonable doubt. 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 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, FTC No. 1, Vadodara in Atrocity Case No. 51/2008 on 19.03.2010, is hereby confirmed. 13. Bail bond stands cancelled. Record and proceedings be sent back to the concerned Trial Court forthwith.