Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 835 (GUJ)

State Of Gujarat v. Bharatbhai Tribhovandas Patel

2025-08-02

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 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') against the judgment and the order passed by the learned Special Judge / 5th Additional District Judge and Sessions Judge, District Banakantha @ Palanpur (hereinafter referred to as 'the learned Trial Court') in Special (Atrocity) Case No.1 of 2011 on 30.05.2012, whereby, the learned Trial Court has acquitted the respondent accused from the offences punishable under Sections 504 , 506(2) and 509 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE (hereinafter referred to as 'the IPC') and under Section 3(1)(x) 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 rank and file in the original case, for the sake of convenience, clarity and brevity. 2. The relevant facts leading to filing of the present appeal are as under: 2.1. The complainant, Dakshaben, daughter of Veerabai Talshibai Parmar, was working as a nurse in Ambaliyad village and was commuting from Palanpur to Ambaliyad. On 25-10-2010 at around 10 a.m., while she was at Malan Gates in Palanpur, the accused came and asked her to surrender to him, he would make her leave her job, abused her, threatened to kill her and used bad language and made some gestures intending to insult her modesty. The accused also hurled caste slurs against her, and the complainant, Dakshaben, daughter of Veerabai Talshibai Parmar, filed a complaint at the Palanpur City Police Station under Sections 504 , 509, 506(2) of the IPC and Section 3(1)(X) of the Atrocity Act, which came to be registered at Palanpur City Police Station, II-C.R.No.382 of 2010. 2.2. After registration of the FIR, the investigation was carried out by the concerned Investigating Officer and after having sufficient material against the accused, a chargesheet came to be filed before the concerned jurisdictional Magistrate. As the case was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, after completion of the process under Section 209 of the Cr.P.C., the case was committed to the Sessions Court and the same was registered as Special (Atrocity) Case No.1 of 2011. 2.3. As the case was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, after completion of the process under Section 209 of the Cr.P.C., the case was committed to the Sessions Court and the same was registered as Special (Atrocity) Case No.1 of 2011. 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 was framed by the learned Trial Court at Exh.5 and the statement of the accused was recorded at Exh.6, wherein, the accused denied all the contents of the charge and the entire evidence of the prosecution was taken on record. The prosecution examined 06 witnesses and produced 07 documentary evidences in support of the case. 2.4. After the closing pursis was submitted by the learned APP, the further statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Code was recorded. After hearing the arguments of the learned APP and learned advocate for the accused and after perusing the documents on record, the learned Trial Court, by the impugned judgment and order, acquitted the accused. 3. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Trial Court, the appellant - State has filed the present appeal mainly stating that the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Trial Court is contrary to law, evidence on record and principles of justice. The learned Trial Court has not considered the direct or indirect evidence produced in this case connecting the accused with the crime and has also not appreciated the oral as well as documentary evidence on record and has straightway arrived at the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubts. The learned Trial Court has erred in considering minor omissions and contradictions in the evidence of the prosecution and the learned Trial Court has given much weightage to these minor omissions and contradictions. The reasons given by the learned Trial Court appreciating the evidence and while acquitting the accused, are not proper and are perverse and bad in law, and hence, the impugned judgment and order deserves to be quashed and set aside. 4. The reasons given by the learned Trial Court appreciating the evidence and while acquitting the accused, are not proper and are perverse and bad in law, and hence, the impugned judgment and order deserves to be quashed and set aside. 4. Heard learned APP Mr.Pranav Dhagat for the appellant - State and learned advocate Mr.Kuldip K. Acharya for the respondent No.1. Though served, the respondent no. 2 has not appeared either in person or through an advocate. Perused the impugned judgment and order of acquittal and have re- appreciated the entire evidence of the prosecution on record of the case. 5. Learned APP Mr.Pranav Dhagat for the appellant State and learned advocate Mr.Kuldip K. Acharya for the respondent No. 1 original complainant have taken this Court through the entire evidence produced by the prosecution and have vehemently argued that the learned Trial Court has not appreciated the evidence properly and the prosecution has produced cogent evidence to prove the case and has successfully proved the case against the accused but the learned Trial Court has not considered the same and has acquitted the accused. The judgment and order of acquittal passed by the learned Judge is contrary to law, evidence on record and principles of justice. The judgment and order of acquittal passed by learned Judge is based on inferences, not warranted by facts of the case and also on presumption, not permitted by law. Learned APP has urged this Court to quash and set aside the impugned judgment and order of acquittal and to find the accused guilty for the said offence. Learned APP has urged this Court to allow the present appeal and impose maximum sentence on the accused. 6. It is a settled principle of law that in an appeal against acquittal, the Trial Court is circumscribed by limitation that no interference has to be made in the order of acquittal unless after appreciation of the evidence produced before the learned Trial Court, it appears that there are some manifest illegality or perversity which could not have been possibly arrived at by the Court. It is also a settled principle that there is no embargo on the Trial Court to review the evidence but, generally the order of acquittal shall not be interfered with as the presumption of innocence of the accused is further strengthened by the order of acquittal. It is also a settled principle that there is no embargo on the Trial Court to review the evidence but, generally the order of acquittal shall not be interfered with as the presumption of innocence of the accused is further strengthened by the order of acquittal. The golden thread which runs through the web of administration of justice in criminal cases is that if two views are possible on the evidence adduced in the case of the prosecution i.e. (i) guilt of the accused and (ii) his innocence, the view, which is in favour of the accused, should be adopted, and if the Trial Court has taken the view in favour of the accused, the Trial Court should not disturb the findings of the acquittal. The Trial Court can interfere with the judgment and order of acquittal only when there are compelling and substantial reasons and the order is clearly unreasonable and where the Trial Court comes to conclusion that based on the evidence, the conviction is a must. 7. In view of the same, the evidence on record is re- appreciated and PW-1, Dakshaben Veerabai Parmar, examined at Exh.10 is the complainant, who has narrated the facts as mentioned in her complaint, which is produced at Exh.11. During the cross-examination by the learned advocate for the accused, the complainant has admitted that she is working as a nurse and has been provided with quarter at Ambaliyad village, and she has to reside in the quarter. The accused is a Press Reporter and he had sought information under the Right to Information Act from her department about her commuting from Palanpur. The place of incident is a pick-up stand to go to other villages, and at the time of the incident, there were a number of persons, who were commuting to other villages. Her sister Belaben is married at Nagana village and has completed her studies up to LL.B and ber brothers are advocates . The complainant has also admitted that she has not gone to any place with the police. The complainant has filed her Caste Certificate at Exh.12. 7.1. PW-2 Belaben Veerabai Parmar, examined at Exh.14, is the sister of the complainant and she has also supported the facts of the complaint. The witness has stated that she was present with her sister at the time of the incident. The complainant has filed her Caste Certificate at Exh.12. 7.1. PW-2 Belaben Veerabai Parmar, examined at Exh.14, is the sister of the complainant and she has also supported the facts of the complaint. The witness has stated that she was present with her sister at the time of the incident. During the cross-examination by the learned advocate for the accused, the witness has also admitted that her sister has been provided with quarter at Ambaliyad village but she is commuting from Palanpur, and the place of incident is a very congested area where there are a number of persons at that time. 7.2. PW-3 Hemabhai Jethabai Makwana, examined at Exh.16, is the panch witness of the arrest panchnama, which is produced at Exh.17. The witness has supported the case of the prosecution. 7.3. PW-4 Tulsibhai Mithabhai, Buckle No.1072, examined at Exh.19, is the PSO, who has registered the offence and has produced the copy of the FIR at Exh.22. 7.4. PW-5 Ashwinkumar Jamnadas Gondalia, examined at Exh.23, is the P.S.I., who has recorded the complaint of the complainant. 7.5. PW-6 Neerajkumar Roopchand Badgujar, examined at Exh.28, is the Investigating Officer, who has narrated the procedure undertaken by him during investigation. During the cross-examination, the witness has admitted that he has not recorded the statements of any persons at the place where the complainant was working. 8. On minute appreciation of the entire evidence of the prosecution, it is on record that the complainant was working as a nurse at village Ambaliyad and she was commuting from Palanpur even though she was provided a residential quarter at Ambaliyad. The accused, who was a Press Reporter, had asked for information about the commuting of the complainant from Ambaliyad village to Palanpur, even though, she was provided with government quarter at Ambaliyad village. In the complaint produced at Exh.11, the witness did not state that her sister, PW-2, Belaben Veerabai Parmar, was with her and was a witness to the incident, but her sister has appeared before the learned Trial Court and has deposed as such. Admittedly, the complainant was going from Ambaliyad village to Palanpur for her job and was commuting every day and she has admitted that her sister was married at village Nagana and there was no reason for her to be with her sister on 25-10-2010. Admittedly, the complainant was going from Ambaliyad village to Palanpur for her job and was commuting every day and she has admitted that her sister was married at village Nagana and there was no reason for her to be with her sister on 25-10-2010. Moreover, it has also emerged on record that the place of incident is a pick-up stand and a number of persons commute from this place to various villages and there were a number of persons present at that time, but no independent witnesses have been examined before the learned Trial Court. Moreover, there is no iota of evidence that the incident has occurred, and even though, the incident has occurred on 25.10.2010 at around 10:00a.m., the FIR has been filed on 26.10.2010 at 21:00 hours. The delay in filing the complaint has not been explained, and it is also on record that PW-2 Belaben Veerabai Parmar, the sister of the complainant, has studied up to LL.B and her brothers, Girishbhai and Tusharbhai, are both advocates. Hence, the delay in filing of the complaint has not been explained and it appears that there was a dispute between the complainant and the accused as the accused was trying to get information under the Right to Information Act about the commuting of the complainant from Palanpur to Ambaliyad village. 9. In view of the above, 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 passed by the learned Trial Court and the present appeal is devoid of merits and resultantly, the same is dismissed. 10. This Court finds no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Trial Court and the present appeal is devoid of merits and resultantly, the same is dismissed. 10. The impugned judgment and the order passed by the learned Special Judge / 5th Additional District and Sessions Judge, District Banaskantha at Palanpur in Criminal Appeal No.1 of 2011 on 30.05.2012 is hereby confirmed. 11. Bail bond stands cancelled. Record and proceedings be sent back to the learned Trial Court forthwith.