Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 532 (GUJ)

State Of Gujarat v. Patel Rameshbhai Manilal

2025-06-23

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 Sessions Judge, Mahesana (hereinafter referred to as "the learned Trial Court") in Sessions Case No. 73 of 2013 on 20.04.2015, whereby, the learned Trial Court has acquitted the respondents for the offence punishable under Sections 323 , 325 and 114 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE , 1860 (IPC) as well as Section 135 of the GUJARAT POLICE ACT (hereinafter referred to as “the G.P.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] On 18-11-2012, at around 16.30 hours, the complainant Vihabhai Ramdas Vandas was in his agricultural land and was putting water in the water line of the machine placed in this agricultural land and at that time, the accused came and told him not to put water in the pipeline and to take his machine from there. The accused No. 1 one got agitated and hit the stick, which was in his hand on the face of the complainant and one teeth of the complainant broke.The accused No. 2 took the sword, which was in his hand and hit it on the wrist of the left hand of the complainant and abused the complainant and asked him to leave the place. The complainant took his tractor and went home and he was taken to Civil Hospital, Bechraji for treatment where he filed the complaint under Sections 325 , 323 and 114 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE , 1860 and Section 135 of the GUJARAT POLICE ACT , which was registered as Bechraji Police Station I-C.R.No. 98 of 2012. The complainant took his tractor and went home and he was taken to Civil Hospital, Bechraji for treatment where he filed the complaint under Sections 325 , 323 and 114 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE , 1860 and Section 135 of the GUJARAT POLICE ACT , which was registered as Bechraji Police Station I-C.R.No. 98 of 2012. 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, Bechraji and as the said offences against the accused was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the case was committed to the Sessions Judge, Mehsana as per the provisions of Section 209 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the case was registered Sessions Case No. 73 of 2013. 2.3] The prosecution filed the following oral evidence as well as documentary evidences to bring home the charge against the accused. ORAL EVIDENCE Sr. No Prosecution Witness No. Name of the Prosecution Witness 1 11 Dr. Chandrakant Kailashpuri Goswami 2 16 Amratbhai Chaturbhai Patel 3 22 Visabhai Ramdas Patel 4 24 Nathhubhai Ranchhodbhai Patel DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES Sr. No Exhs Particulars 1 12 Recovery Certificate of Complainant 2 19 Arrest Panchnama 3 20 Depute Order 4 22 Panchnama of place of offence 5 23 Complaint 6 27 Offence Report 7 28 Arrest Report 8 29 Copy of notification 2.4] That after the entire evidence of the prosecution was taken on record, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor filed the closing pursis at Exh; 30 and the further statement of the accused were recorded wherein both the accused denied all the evidence and stated that a false case has been filed 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 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 respondents 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. Dhwani Tripathi for the appellant - State. Though served, the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have not appeared either in person or though and advocate. 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. Dhwani Tripathi 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. That the complainant has supported the case of the prosecution, which is corroborated by the deposition of the medical officer and the witnesses have identified the accused before the learned trial Court. 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. 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] 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. 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". (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. 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.. 7. 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 appre- ciation, 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. 8. 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 Dr. Chandrakant Kailashpuri Goswami at Exh.11 and the witness has stated that on 18th November 2012, he was on duty at around 6.45pm at the Community Health Centre, Bechraji when Vihabhai Ramdas Patel was brought without police yadi for treatment. In the history, he had stated that Rameshbhai Manilal Patel and Rajnikant Rameshbhai Patel had assaulted him with a stick and a sword respectively in the outskirts of Gabhu village. On examination, there was a CLW 4 cm X 0.5 cm, skin deep transverse on the anterior and lower aspect of left forearm and his incisor and his lower incisor tooth was missing with bleeding from the gum and mobility of the neighbour teeth. The injured was transferred to General Hospital, Mehsana for further dental treatment. The injury could be sustained by a hard and blunt substance as per his opinion, the injury and may take 10 to 12 days to heal if no complications arise. The injured was transferred to General Hospital, Mehsana for further dental treatment. The injury could be sustained by a hard and blunt substance as per his opinion, the injury and may take 10 to 12 days to heal if no complications arise. The witness has produced the injury certificate at Exh:12. During the cross-examination by the learned advocate for the accused, the witness has stated that if the behind portion of the sword is hit, a straight injury could be sustained but injury No. 1 was not straight and it was an uneven zigzag injury. The injury could be sustained if a person would jump over a hedge and dash against a hard and blunt substance. The injury could also be sustained if someone was trying to bite the thumb of another and the other person was trying to release his hand. That if a person was hit with a stick on the face, he could lose a tooth and sustain injury in the inside and outside of the lips. There was no injury to the inside or outside lip of the complainant and if a person has someone's thumb between his teeth and the hand was pulled, he could lose a teeth. 8.1 The prosecution has examined Prosecution Witness No. 2 Amratbhai Chaturbhai Patel at Exh:16 and the witness is the panch witness of the arrest panchnama by which the accused were arrested, which is produced at Exh:19. The witness has supported the case of the prosecution and during the cross examination, the witness has stated that the accused No. 1 was injured on the head and chest and there were bandages over his body and both the accused were kept in the lockup room. The stick that was shown to them was a new stick and the weapons were lying on the table and he does not know where the police had brought the weapons from. The police had told him that the panchnama was a panchnama of the weapons and he has had affixed his signature on the panchnama. 8.2 The prosecution has examined Prosecution Witness No. 3 Vihaben Ramdasbhai Patel at Exh:22 and the witness is the complainant, who has narrated the facts of the complaint, which is produced at Exh:23. The police had told him that the panchnama was a panchnama of the weapons and he has had affixed his signature on the panchnama. 8.2 The prosecution has examined Prosecution Witness No. 3 Vihaben Ramdasbhai Patel at Exh:22 and the witness is the complainant, who has narrated the facts of the complaint, which is produced at Exh:23. During the cross examination by the learned advocate for the accused, the witness has stated that he had a fight with one Ramanbhai about the water and there was a case filed against him that he had hit Ramanbhai with a shovel. That a pipeline of about 500 meters is placed from the borewell to take water to the agricultural land and one line was going from the front of the agricultural land of the accused No. 1 and as the borewell had failed, a new borewell was made in his land. On the date of the incident, he was preparing a new tank in his field and Chaturji Thakor and two other persons were the laborers. When the accused had arrived, the work was going on, but none of the persons, who were present there had intervened. That, he was not injured on his lip and the accused No. 1 came and told him that the pipeline was of their old partnership. That at that time he had a axe in his hand and the complainant has denied that he had hit the accused No. 1 with the axe and the accused No. 1 was injured on his head and chest for treatment. 8.3 The prosecution has examined Prosecution Witness No. 4 Naththubhai Ranchhoddas Patel at Exh:24 and the witness has stated that on 18-11-2012, he was at his house when Vihabhai - the complainant came and told him that the accused had quarreled with him and he was injured with the stick on his face and to take him to hospital. He and the son of Vihabhai had taken him to the Civil Hospital, Bechraji. During the cross examination by the learned advocate for the accused, the witness has stated that he is not an eyewitness to the incident and he has not seen the place, where, the pipeline was being laid. That he had not seen any blood on the outside portion of the jaw of the complainant and he does not know how the complainant had lost a tooth. That he had not seen any blood on the outside portion of the jaw of the complainant and he does not know how the complainant had lost a tooth. 8.4 The prosecution has examined Prosecution Witness No.5 Narshibhai Devjibhai Chaudhary at Exh:26 and the witness is the Investigating Officer, who has narrated the procedure undertaken by him during investigation. During the cross examination by the learned advocate for the accused, the witness has stated that the offence registered at Bechraji Police Station I-C.R.No.99 of 2012 under Section 307 of the IPC has been registered against the complainant and both the complaints were filed because the work of the pipeline was being done without the permission of the partners. That he does not know how many partners are there besides the accused and he has not inquired about the other partners. The accused No. 1 was seriously injured in the head and chest and was admitted in Sai Krupa Hospital and when the arrest panchnama was prepared, the weapons were on the table. In the offence registered at Bechraji Police Station I-C.R.No.99 of 2012, he had recorded the statement of witness Rajnikantbhai who is the accused No. 2 in this case, wherein, he had stated that Vihabhai - the complainant of this case had assaulted his father with a shovel and his father had sustained injuries on his head and his chest and Bipinbhai had intervened and Vihabhai had bit the thumb of Bipinbhai. 9] On minute appreciation of the entire evidence of the prosecution, the complainant is the sole witness, who has been examined by the prosecution and as per the case of the prosecution, there were three other persons, who were working in the field, but no independent witnesses have been examined. The panchnama, which is produced at Exh:16 states that the weapons were on the table and the accused were in the lockup and the accused No. 1 was seriously injured on the head and on his chest. The panchnama, which is produced at Exh:16 states that the weapons were on the table and the accused were in the lockup and the accused No. 1 was seriously injured on the head and on his chest. In the evidence, it has emerged on record that a cross case at Bechraji Police Station I-C.R.No.99 of 2012 registered under Section 307 of the IPC was filed by the accused against the complainant Vihabhai and it has come on record that the complainant had attacked the accused No. 1 with his Axe and at that time the accused No. 2 and one Bipinbhai had intervened and the complainant had also assaulted them and the complainant bit the thumb of Bipinbhai and Bipinbhai had pulled his hand. As per the evidence of Prosecution Witness No.1 Dr. Chandrakantbhai Kailaspuri Goswami, there was no injury on the outer part of the lip or jaw of the complainant and if the complainant was assaulted with a stick on his face, he would have sustained some injury on the outer portion of the lip or inner portion of the lip. As per the evidence, the complainant was treated at Bechraji and was thereafter referred to General Hospital Mahesana for further treatment but the Medical Officer of Civil Hospital Mahesana where the complainant was treated, has not been examined and the evidence regarding the medical treatment of the complainant has not come on record. 10] 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 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. 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. 11] The impugned judgement and order of acquittal passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Mahesana in Sessions Case No. 73 of 2013 on 20.04.2015, is hereby confirmed. 12] Bail bond stands cancelled. Record and proceedings be sent back to the concerned Trial Court forthwith.