Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 595 (GUJ)

State Of Gujarat v. Savji Chelaji Rajput

2025-06-30

S.V.PINTO

body2025
JUDGMENT : S.V. PINTO, J. 1. This 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 Special Judge, Banaskantha at Palanpur (hereinafter referred to as “the learned Trial Court”) in Special Atrocity Case No. 24/2011 on 13.04.2012, whereby, the learned Trial Court has acquitted the respondents for the offence punishable under Sections 504 , 506(2) and 114 of IPC and Section 3(1)(10) of Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as “the 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 complainant Hiraben wife of Mafabai Bhikhabai Vankar was the joint owner of land bearing survey no. 273/A/1 paiki 4 situated in the outskirts of Dalawana village and the land was mortgaged by a document dated 12.07.2000 to the accused no. 1 - Rajput Sawaji Chelaji for Rs. 74,000/-. As per the condition of the mortgage, the possession of the land was to be returned whenever the amount of Rs. 74,000/- was returned and when the complainant had the amount of Rs. 74,000/-, she went to give the same to the accused no. 1 - Sawaji Rajput but he did not accept the same and did not give possession of the land. A notice through her advocate was sent on 19.02.2011 and cheque no. 596472 dated 17.02.2011 for Rs. 74,000/- from the account with State Bank of India was offered to the accused no. 1 - Sawaji Rajput but he did not accept the same. On 11.03.2011 at around 11.00 hours, the complainant – Hiraben wife of Mafabai Bhikhabai Vankar, her sons - Girishbhai and Praveenbhai and her brother-in- law - Laxmanbhai Veerabhai Parmar went to the agricultural land and the accused were present at the land. The accused hurled caste slurs against them, abused them and threatened to kill and bury them alive. On 11.03.2011 at around 11.00 hours, the complainant – Hiraben wife of Mafabai Bhikhabai Vankar, her sons - Girishbhai and Praveenbhai and her brother-in- law - Laxmanbhai Veerabhai Parmar went to the agricultural land and the accused were present at the land. The accused hurled caste slurs against them, abused them and threatened to kill and bury them alive. The complainant and others were afraid and the complainant came to Chhapi Police Station and filed the complaint under Sections 504 , 506(2), 114 of the IPC and Section 3(1)(10) of the Atrocity Act which came to be registered as Chhapi Police Station II –C.R. No. 3012/2011. 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, Vadgam and as the said offences against the accused were exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the case was committed to the Sessions Court, Banaskantha at Palanpur as per the provisions of Section 209 of Code of Criminal Procedure and the case was registered as Special Atrocity Case No. 24/2011. 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, 7 and 8 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 16 documentary evidences on record in support of their case and after the learned Additional Public Prosecutor filed the closing pursis at Exh. 39, 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 judgment and order was pleased to acquit the accused from all the charges leveled against them. 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 the accused from all the charges leveled 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 Mr. Pranav Dhagat for the appellant State and learned advocate Mr. Tushar Chaudhary 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 Mr. Pranav Dhagat 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. 5.1 Learned advocate Mr. Tushar Chaudhary for the respondent nos. 1 to 3 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. 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 regarding the scope of interference in acquittal appeals in the case of Chandrappa & Ors. Vs. 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 regarding the scope of interference 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 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, re-appreciate 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. 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. 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 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. 8. In light of the above settled principle of law, the evidence of the prosecution is dissected and the prosecution has examined PW1 – Hiraben Mafabhai Jadav at Exh. 14 and the witness is the complainant who has narrated the facts as stated in the complaint which is produced at Exh. 15. The complainant has also produced her caste certificate at Exh. 16 and the copy of village form no. 7/12 of the disputed land at Exh. 17. During the cross examination by the learned advocate for the accused the witness has stated that the possession of the land was handed over to the accused no. 15. The complainant has also produced her caste certificate at Exh. 16 and the copy of village form no. 7/12 of the disputed land at Exh. 17. During the cross examination by the learned advocate for the accused the witness has stated that the possession of the land was handed over to the accused no. 1 on 12.07.2000 and he was in possession of the land till date. At the time when the land was handed over to the accused no. 1, it had potholes and the accused no. 1 levelled the land for cultivation. As per the document, the cost of levelling the land was to be paid to the accused no. 1 and the complainant had gone five months prior to the date of incident to pay the amount of Rs. 74,000/- to the accused no. 1. The complainant has stated that she had gone on the day of the incident to take possession of the land and on the previous day she had met her advocate and her advocate had told her to file a police complaint and hence, she had gone and filed the police complaint as per the advice of the advocate. That after the document was executed, she had often gone to the land and met the accused no. 1 and she had written the complaint as told to her by her son Girish. 8.1 The prosecution has examined PW2 – Pravinbhai Mafabhai Parmar at Exh. 27 and the witness is the son of the complainant and has fully supported the case of the prosecution. During the cross examination by the learned advocate for the accused the witness has stated that as per the document produced at Exh. 19, condition no. 4 was that the expenses that had occurred in levelling the land was to be borne by the accused no. 1 and that amount was to be added in Rs. 74,000/-. That earlier the accused had told them that he was not returning the possession of the land but he went along with his mother, brother and uncle to take possession of the land on the date of the incident. 8.2 PW3 - Girishbhai Mafabai Parmar examined at Exh. 28 is the son of the complainant who has fully supported the case of the prosecution. 8.2 PW3 - Girishbhai Mafabai Parmar examined at Exh. 28 is the son of the complainant who has fully supported the case of the prosecution. During the cross examination by the learned advocate for the accused the witness has stated that he has not verified whether the amount of cheque has been deducted from his brother's account and has admitted that the amount was not withdrawn from his brother's account. The accused no. 1 had sent a reply to the notice and had refused to handover possession of the disputed land to them and in his statement before the police, he has not stated that the accused had told them that he would give the possession of the land after Diwali as there were some crops growing in the same. 8.3 The prosecution has examined PW4 – Laxmanbhai Virabhai Parmarat Exh. 31 and the witness is the brother- in-law of the complainant, who as per the case of the prosecution had gone along with the complainant to take possession of the disputed agricultural land from the accused at the time of the incident. The witness has fully supported the case of the prosecution and during the cross examination by the learned advocate for the accused he has stated that as per condition no. 4 of the document, the expenses incurred in levelling the land was to be borne by the accused no. 1 and that amount was to be added in Rs. 74,000/-. The amount of cheque was not deducted from the account of his nephew Praveenbhai Parmar. 8.4 PW5 - Chirag Bhagwandas Tandel examined at Exh. 33 has stated that he was working as a PSI at Chhapi Police Station when the complainant had come and he had recorded the complaint of the complainant which is produced at Exh. 15. The complaint was registered by the PSO at under Sections 504 , 506(2) and 114 of the IPC and Section 3(1)(10) of the Atrocity Act at Chhapi Police Station II – C.R. No. 3012/2011. 8.5 The prosecution has examined PW6 – Rameshbhai Ishwarbhai Patel at Exh. 36 and the witness is the Investigating Officer who has narrated the procedure undertaken by him during investigation. 8.5 The prosecution has examined PW6 – Rameshbhai Ishwarbhai Patel at Exh. 36 and the witness is the Investigating Officer who has narrated the procedure undertaken by him during investigation. During the cross examination the witness has stated that during investigation it was found that the complainant and the witnesses had gone to the disputed land to take possession of the same and during investigation the mortgage deed as also the notice and other documents were given by the complainant. During investigation he did not verify whether the amount mentioned in the cheque was deducted from the account or not and he had taken over investigation of the offence as per the order of the Superintendent of Police, Banaskanta at Palanpur which is produced at Exh. 37. 9. On minute appreciation of the entire evidence of the prosecution, the evidence that has emerged on record is that the agricultural land of the complainant was mortgaged to the accused no. 1 by a deed dated 11.07.2000 and the possession of the property was with the accused no. 1 since that date. As per the condition no. 4 mentioned in the mortgage deed at Exh. 19, the expenses for levelling the land proper was to be paid by the accused no. 1 and that amount was to be added to the amount of Rs. 74,000/-. There is no evidence on record as to what amount was spent by the accused no. 1 and the notice sent by the complainant and her sons to the accused no. 1 is produced at Exh. 20 and by the document produced at Exh. 24, the accused no. 1 had replied to the notice. There was a civil dispute going on between the parties and the complainant wanted the possession of the land that was mortgaged with the accused no. 1 and the accused no. 1 had to take the amount of Rs. 74,000/- and the expenses that were incurred by him and on the date of the complaint, the complainant and the other witnesses had gone to the place to take the possession of the land from the complainant. As per the panchnama of the place of offence which is produced at Exh. 29, the incident had occurred near the agricultural field of the property and as per the say of the complainant at that time only the accused, complainant and her family members were present. As per the panchnama of the place of offence which is produced at Exh. 29, the incident had occurred near the agricultural field of the property and as per the say of the complainant at that time only the accused, complainant and her family members were present. If the deposition of the complainant produced at Exh. 14 is perused, the complainant has not uttered a single word about any abuses or caste slurs used by the accused at the time of the incident and the entire civil dispute has been narrated in detail by her. Moreover, the complainant herself has admitted that she had gone to take the advice of her advocate and her advocate had advised her to file a police complaint if she wanted to take possession of the land that was mortgaged from the accused and hence, she went on the next day and filed the complaint as per the advice of her advocate. Moreover, her son Girish had told her what has to be mentioned in the complaint. In the entire evidence, there is nothing on record to suggest that any abuses were used by the accused or any caste slurs that were used by the accused at the time of the incident and there is nothing on record to suggest that any threats were uttered by the accused. 10. 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. 11. 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 Special Judge, Banaskantha at Palanpur in Special Atrocity Case No. 24/2011 on 13.04.2012, is hereby confirmed. 12. Bail bond stands cancelled. Record and proceedings be sent back to the concerned Trial Court forthwith.