Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 332 (GUJ)

State of Gujarat v. Nanjibhai Meghjibhai Suthar

2025-03-27

S.V.PINTO

body2025
JUDGMENT : 1. This appeal has been 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 Special Judge, Kutchh camp at Gandhidham-Kachchh (hereinafter referred to as "the learned Trial Court") in Special Case (ATRO) No. 57 of 2008 on 22.05.2009, whereby, the learned Trial Court has acquitted the respondent for the offence punishable under Sections 324 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code , 1860 ( IPC ) as well as Section 3(1)(10) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act , 1989 (hereinafter referred to as “the Atrocities Act”). 1.1 The respondent is hereinafter referred to as “the accused” as he 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 Dayabai Manjipal Gohil residing at Mafatpara, Vongh Taluka Bhachau filed a complaint on 12-10-2008 mainly stating that the accused had a truck No. GJ-12-W-7973 and asked the complainant to help him as the tyre of his truck had a puncture and the complainant went with the accused in the truck and when they returned, the complainant demanded for his wages but the accused got angry and hurled caste abuses and took a board with nails from his vehicle and hit the same on the right leg of the complainant. The part of the board with the nail hurt the complainant and he started bleeding and the accused gave another blow with the board on the left elbow of the complainant. The complainant started shouting and his father Manjibhai Andabhai Gohil came and took him in a rickshaw for treatment to the hospital at Bhachau. The complaint was filed under Sections 324 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code , 1860 and Section 3 (1)(10) of the Scheduled Tribes and Scheduled Castes (Prevention of Atrocities), Act, 1989 and Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act, which was registered at Bhachau Police Station being I-C.R.No. 196 of 2008. The complaint was filed under Sections 324 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code , 1860 and Section 3 (1)(10) of the Scheduled Tribes and Scheduled Castes (Prevention of Atrocities), Act, 1989 and Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act, which was registered at Bhachau Police Station being I-C.R.No. 196 of 2008. 2.2 The Investigating Officer recorded the statements of the connected witnesses and collected the necessary documents and after completion of investigation the police filed the chargesheet against the accused before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bhachau and as the said offences against the accused was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the case was committed to the Special Court, Kachchh as per the provisions of Section 209 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the case was registered Special (ATRO) Case No. 57 of 2008. 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. A charge at Exh. 3 was framed against the accused and the statements of the accused was recorded at Exh. 4, 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 fourteen oral evidences and twelve documentary evidences to bring home the charge against the accused and after the learned Additional Public Prosecutor filed the closing pursis at Exh.33, 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 - State 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 cross-examination, nothing adverse has been elicited in favour of the respondent. The case has been proved beyond reasonable doubts and the prosecution has successfully established the case against the respondent 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 APP Mr. Utkarsh Sharma, for the appellant State and learned advocate Mr. Manthan Shukla for learned advocate for the respondent - accused. 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. Utkarsh Sharma has taken this Court through the entire evidence of the prosecution on record of the case and submitted that the judgment and order of acquittal is contrary to law and evidence on record and the learned trial Court has not appreciated the direct and indirect evidence in the case. The prosecution has fully proved the case beyond reasonable doubts but the learned trial Court has relied on minor contradictions and has given undue weightage with regard to the place of incident. That the order passed by the learned trial Court is illegal, improper and perverse and is required to be quashed and set aside and the appeal of the appellant must be allowed. 6. Learned advocate Mr. That the order passed by the learned trial Court is illegal, improper and perverse and is required to be quashed and set aside and the appeal of the appellant must be allowed. 6. Learned advocate Mr. Manthan Shukla for the respondent - original accused submits that the judgment and order has been passed after appreciation of all the evidence and the learned Court has appreciated the evidence in proper perspective and hence, the appeal of the appellant-State must 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 in acquittal appeals 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 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. 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 light of the above settled principles of law, the evidence on record of the case is appreciated and the prosecution has examined Prosecution Witness No. 1 Ramju Aamad Ghanchi at Exhibit 8 and Prosecution Witness No. 2 Velji Chhaganbhai Koli at Exhibit 10. Both the witnesses are the panch witnesses of the panchnama of the place of offence, which is produced at Exhibit 9. Both the witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution and have been declared hostile and have been cross examined at length by the learned Additional Public Proscutor, but nothing to support the case of the prosecution has come on record. 9.1 The prosecution has examined Prosecution Witness No. 3 Ashokbhai Meraman Myava at Exhibit 11 and Prosecution Witness No. 4 Vajubhai Hardas Rabari at Exhibit 13. Both the witnesses are the panch witnesses of the arrest panchnama, whereby the accused was arrested, which is produced at Exhibit 12. Both the witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution and have been declared hostile and have been cross examined at length by the learned APP but nothing to support the case of the prosecution has come on record. 9.2 The prosecution has examined Prosecution Witness No. 5 Kaya Maji Gohil Harijan at Exhibit 14 and the witness is complainant who has narrated the same facts as stated in the complaint, which is produced at Exhibit 15. During the cross examination by the learned advocate for the accused, the witness has stated that the place, where the incident has occurred, is a congested place and is continuously having passers by. During the cross examination by the learned advocate for the accused, the witness has stated that the place, where the incident has occurred, is a congested place and is continuously having passers by. That the Cowshed of Vongh village is also at that place and at the time of the incident there were many persons standing there There are a number of shops and he had filed a written complaint to the police. The incident has occurred at around 04.30 but he did not mention the time when the incident occurred in the complaint. The witness has admitted that he has seen the accused for the first time in the Court room. 9.3 The prosecution has examined Prosecution Witness No. 6 Majibhai Anandbhai Meghwad at Exhibit 16 and the witness is the father of the complainant who has supported the case of the prosecution. During the cross examination by the learned advocate for the accused, the witness has stated that the police had come to the hospital and had taken his statement and asked him to affix his signature. That he does not know how his son was injured and he did not tell the police that the accused was riding a big vehicle. The place near the Cowshed is a congested place and in his statement before the police he has not stated that his son had gone along with the accused to change the tyre of the truck. 9.4 The prosecution has examined Prosecution Witness No. 7 Laxmiben Majibhai Dalit at Exhibit 17 and the witness is the mother of the complainant, who has supported the case of the prosecution. During the cross examination by the learned advocate for the accused, the witness has stated that she has not stated in her statement before the police that her son had gone to change the tyre of the truck of the accused and she does not know whether she has stated that her son had demanded for his wages from the accused. 9.5 The prosecution has examined Prosecution Witness No. 8 Husenbhai Abdulbhai Jadeja at Exhibit 18 and as per the case of the prosecution the witness is the rickshaw driver, who had taken the complainant for treatment to the hospital, but the witness has stated that he is known to the complainant but he has never taken the complainant to the hospital in his rickshaw The witness has not supported the case of the prosecution and has been declared hostile and during the lengthy cross examination by the learned APP, nothing to support the case of the prosecution has come on record. 9.6 Prosecution Witness No. 9 Champsibhai Khimjibhai Maheshwari examined at Exhibit 19 is the PSO, who has registered Janva Jog Entry No. 141 of 2008 at Bhachau Police Station and has produced the extract from the Janva Jog Register at Exhibit 20. As per the document produced at Exhibit 20, a telephone call was received from Dr.K.Kumar from CHC Bhachau stating that Dayabhai Manjibhai Harijan, aged 18, residing at Vongh, Taluka, Bhachau was beaten by Nanji Megji Suthar and had sustained an injury on his right leg and was admitted to the hospital for treatment. The incident had occurred at 18.30 and the Janva Jog was registered in the Bhachau Police Station. 9.7 The prosecution has examined Prosecution Witness No. 10 Ramanbhai Chhanbhai Parmar at Exhibit 21 and the witness was working with the Taluka Development Officer who has produced the caste certificate of the complainant at Exhibit 22. During the cross-examination by the learned advocate for the accused, the witness has stated that he has not issued the caste certificate which is produced at Exhibit 22. 9.8 The prosecution has examined Prosecution Witness No. 11 Dr. Kaushal Kumar Gurucharan Prasad at Exhibit 23 and the witness was working as the Medical Officer in the Community Health Centre, Bhachau on 12.10.2008 The witness has stated that at around 7.15pm Dayabhai Manjibhai Harijan was brought by Manji Anada who informed him that a fight had taken place near the Cowshed at Vongh village. On examination, there was a cut injury 6cm x 2cm deep on the right foot and the injury was a simple injury, which was inflicted by a hard and blunt object and the medical certificate is produced at Exhibit 24. On examination, there was a cut injury 6cm x 2cm deep on the right foot and the injury was a simple injury, which was inflicted by a hard and blunt object and the medical certificate is produced at Exhibit 24. During the cross-examination by the learned advocate for the accused, the witness has stated that no history was given in the MLC certificate produced at Exhibit 24 and the injury that was sustained by the injured could be sustained if a person falls down while running. 9.9 The prosecution has examined Prosecution Witness No. 12 Sangramsinh Shivnath Yadav at Exhibit 26 and the witness was working as an ASI in Bhachau Police Station, Town Beat and he had inquired into the Janva Jog Entry No.241 of 2008. That he had gone to the Community Health Centre and had noted down the complaint of the complainant, which is produced at Exhibit 15. The witness has, during the cross-examination, stated that he had gone and met the injured at 9.30 pm. 9.10 The prosecution has examined Prosecution Witness No. 13 Narendrasinh Bahadursinh Jadeja at Exhibit 28 and the witness was working as the PSO and he has registered the offence at Bhachau Police Station, I-C.R.No.196 of 2008. 9.11 The prosecution has examined Prosecution Witness No. 14 Chokhubha Chanaji Parmar at Exhibit 30 and the witness is the Investigating Officer, who has narrated in detail about the procedure undertaken by him during investigation of the offence. During the crossexamination by the learned advocate for the accused, the witness has stated that the time when the depute order was received is not mentioned in Exhibit 31. 10. On minute appreciation of the entire evidence of the prosecution as per the case of the prosecution, the incident has occurred in a public place near the Cowshed and there were a number of persons present at that time but no independent witnesses are examined by the prosecution. The only witnesses that have been examined are the father and mother of the complainant and they are not the eye-witnesses to the incident. The independent witness Prosecution Witness No. 8 Hussainbhai Abdulbhai Juneja who has taken the injured to the hospital has not supported the case of the prosecution and has been declared hostile and the medical certificate does not mention the history as to how the injury has taken place. The independent witness Prosecution Witness No. 8 Hussainbhai Abdulbhai Juneja who has taken the injured to the hospital has not supported the case of the prosecution and has been declared hostile and the medical certificate does not mention the history as to how the injury has taken place. As per the opinion of the Medical Officer, the injury could be sustained when a person falls down while running and the complainant has categorically stated that he had seen the accused for the first time in the court. This casts a huge doubt on the say of the complainant and all the evidence produced on record has been properly appreciated by the learned Trial Court. 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 extending benefit of doubt and acquitting the accused of the charges leveled against him. 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 extending benefit of doubt and 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, Kutchh camp at Gandhidham-Kachchh in Special Case (ATRO) No. 57 of 2008 on 22.05.2009, is hereby confirmed. 13. Bail bond stands cancelled. Record and proceedings be sent back to the concerned Trial Court forthwith.