Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 838 (GUJ)

State Of Gujarat v. Ranjitsinh Prabhatsinh Khant

2025-08-02

S.V.PINTO

body2025
JUDGMENT : S.V. PINTO, J. 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 learned Special Judge & 4 th Additional Sessions Judge, Kheda (hereinafter referred to as "the learned Trial Court") in Special (ATRO) Case No. 67 of 2010 on 09.04.2012 whereby, the learned Trial Court has acquitted the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 for the offence for the offence punishable under Sections 504 , 506(2) and 114 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE , 1860 (IPC) and Sections 3 (1)(10) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities ) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as the Atrocities Act) 2] When the matter is called out, learned APP submits a report of Virpur Police Station, Unarmed Head Constable V. N. Chauhan of Virpur Police Station, District Mahisagar stating that the respondent No.2 Prabhatsinh Motisinh Khant has expired in 2013 and submits a copy of the certificate of Talati-cum-Mantri, Pasroda Gram Panchayat, Taluka Virpur, District Mahisagar stating that the respondent No. 2 has expired in the year 2013. In view of the same, the appeal qua respondent No. 2 has become infructuous and is disposed of accordingly. 2.1] The respondents are hereinafter referred to as “the accused” as they stood in the rank and file in the original case for the sake of convenience, clarity and brevity. 3] The brief facts that emerge from the record of the case are as under: 3.1] On 19-10-2009, at about 15:00 hours, the complainant - Lebabhai Kadabhai Vankar was sitting at his shop at Javrakhant Na Movada, Tabe Jodhpur, Taluka: Virpur and the accused No. 1 had consumed liquor and came to the shop and threw the basket of onions and potatoes from the shop of the complainant. When the complainant asked him why he had thrown the basket of the vegetables, the accused No. 1 started abusing the complainant and took a stone in his hand to assault the complainant. A struggle ensued during which, the wrist watch on the left hand of the complainant broke. The complainant started shouting and the witnesses came and intervened and the accused No. 2, who was the father of the accused No. 1 came to the house of the complainant with stick and abused the complainant. A struggle ensued during which, the wrist watch on the left hand of the complainant broke. The complainant started shouting and the witnesses came and intervened and the accused No. 2, who was the father of the accused No. 1 came to the house of the complainant with stick and abused the complainant. Both the accused hurled caste-slurs against the complainant and the complainant filed a complaint at the Virpur Police Station under Sections 504 , 506 (2)and 114 of the IPC and Section 3 (1) (10) of the Atrocity Act and Section 135 of the BP Act which came to be registered at Virpur Police Station II- C.R.No.81 of 2009. 3.2] The Investigating Officer recorded the statements of the connected witnesses and collected the necessary documents and after completion of investigation the police filed the charge-sheet against the accused before the Court of the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Balasinor and as the said offences against the accused were exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the case was committed to the Sessions Court, Kheda as per the provisions of Section 209 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the case was registered Special (ATRO) Case No. 67 of 2010. 3.3] 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. 4 was framed against the accused and the statements of the accused were recorded at Exh. 5 and Exh.6 respectively, wherein, the accused denied all the contents of the charge and the entire evidence of the prosecution was taken on record. 3.4] The prosecution produced ten oral and four documentary evidences to bring home the charge against the accused and after the learned Additional Public Prosecutor 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. 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 them. 4] 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 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. 5] Heard Additional Public Prosecutor Ms. Chetna Shah for the appellant and learned advocate Ms. Tanuja Kachchhi for the respondent No.1- State. Perused the impugned judgement and order of acquittal and have reappreciated the entire evidence of the prosecution on record of the case. 6] Learned APP Ms. Chetna Shah 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 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. That the complainant has supported the case of the prosecution 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. 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. 7] Learned advocate Ms. Tanuja Kachchhi appearing for the respondent No. 1 submits that the judgments 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. 8] 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 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. 9] 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. 9] 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. 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 reappreciate the evidence by the Appellate Court but if after reappreciation, 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. 10] In light on the above settled principles of law and considering the evidence of the prosecution on record, to bring home the charge against the accused, the prosecution has examined Prosecution Witness No.1 - Lebabhai Kalabhai Vankar at Exhibit 14 and the witness is the complainant who has supported the facts of the complaint which is produced at exhibit 15. During the cross examination by the learned advocate for the accused, the witness has stated that he has a shop selling miscellaneous items and vegetables, which is on the road and there are other residential houses behind his shop. The accused are known to him as they sued to purchase groceries and vegetables from his shop often and the incident has occurred as he refused to sell goods on credit to the accused. The accused were asking for goods on credit and the complainant told them that he wanted cash and they had a verbal altercation. He immediately went to the Police Station with his mother and had given an application at the Police Station with his signature and had returned back home. His brother Ramanbhai is working as a teacher and after his brother came home on the next day, he had filed the complaint after discussing with his brother as to how should the complaint be filed and thereafter had gone to the Police Station with his brother. At the time of the incident, only he and the accused No. 1 were present and after the incident had occurred, he had shouted and his wife and mother and cousin brother's wife Bhanuben had come and he had told them the incident that had occurred. At the time of the incident, only he and the accused No. 1 were present and after the incident had occurred, he had shouted and his wife and mother and cousin brother's wife Bhanuben had come and he had told them the incident that had occurred. He did not have any dispute with the accusd No. 2. 10.1] Prosecution Witness No. 2 -Manguben Lebabhai Vankar examined at Exhibit 20 is the wife of the complainant and she has supported the case of the prosecution. During the cross examination by the learned advocate for the accused, the witness has stated that on the day of the incident, it was the New year’s Day and there were a number of persons coming and going in their street. The accused No. 1 was often purchasing vegetables by cash and on credit from their shop and when the incident had occurred, she was at her house and when she went to the shop, there were stones lying in front of the cabin. Her brother-in-law, sister-in-law and she had gone there and her brother-in-law had discussed about how to give the complaint. She did not intervene at the time of the incident 10.2] Prosecution Witness No. 3 - Kodiben Kalabhai Vankar examined at Exhibit 21 is the mother of the complainant and she has supported the case of the prosecution. During the cross examination by the learned advocate for the accused, the witness has stated that her house is behind the cabin of the complainant and after she heard shouting, she had gone to the cabin and when she went to the place of incident, her son's watch was lying on the ground and her son had discussed about the incident, and accordingly, she had deposed before the Court. 10.3] Prosecution Witness No. 4 - Morabhai Kanabhai Rohit examined at Exhibit 23 is an eyewitness as per the case of the prosecution but the witness has stated that he does not know of any incident that has occurred and has not supported the case of the prosecution and has been declared hostile. The witness has been cross examined at length by the learned APP but nothing to support the case of the prosecution has come on record. The witness has been cross examined at length by the learned APP but nothing to support the case of the prosecution has come on record. 10.4] Prosecution Witness No. 5 Vechatbhai Valabhai Chamar examined at Exhibit 24 is also an eyewitness as per the case of the prosecution but the witness has not supported the case of the prosecution and has been declared hostile and cross-examined at length by the learned APP but nothing to support the case of the prosecution has come on record. 10.5] Prosecution Witness No. 6 - Mohanlal Jethalal Suthar examined at Exhibit 28 is the panchwitness of the arrest panchnama, which is produced at Exhibit 29. 10.6] Prosecution Witness No. 7 Lalabhai Manabhai Vankar examined at Exhibit 31 and Prosecution Witness No. 8 Poonjabhai Nathabhai Vankar examined at Exhibit 33 are the panchwitnesses of the panchnama of the place of offence, which is produced at Exhibit 32. Both the witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution and have been declared hostile, 10.7] Prosecution Witness No. 9 - Iqbalhussain Babulal Ajmeri examined at Exhibit 35 was working as the PSI at Balasinor Police Station and he has recorded the complaint of the complainant and Head Constable - Babubhai Heerabhai had registered the complaint at Virpur Police Station under Section 504 , 506, 114 of the IPC, Section 3 (1)(10) of the Atrocity Act and Section 135 of the Gujarat Police Act at Virpur Police Station II-C.R.No.81 of 2009. The witness has produced the extract of the Station Diary at Exhibit 36. During the cross examination by the learned advocate for the accused, the witness has stated that in the complaint the complainant has stated that he had earlier given an application about the incident at the Virpur Police Station and prior to filing of the complaint, he did not verify as to what had happened to the application given at Virpur Police Station. At the time of filing of the complaint, the complainant had come with many other persons. 10.8] Prosecution Witness No. 10 -Poonambhai Chanabhai Baranda examined at exhibit 37 is the Investigating Officer who has narrated the entire procedure undertaken by him during investigation. At the time of filing of the complaint, the complainant had come with many other persons. 10.8] Prosecution Witness No. 10 -Poonambhai Chanabhai Baranda examined at exhibit 37 is the Investigating Officer who has narrated the entire procedure undertaken by him during investigation. During the cross examination by the learned advocate for the accused, the witness has stated that the complainant has stated in the complaint that he had given an application at the Virpur Police Station on 19-10-2009 but he did not investigate about the application. During investigation, it was found that no weapons were used by any of the accused. 11] On minute appreciation of the entire evidence of the prosecution, the incident as per the say of the complainant the incident has occurred on 19-10-2009 and the complaint has been filed by the complainant on 20-10-2009. There is no explanation regarding the delay in filing of the complaint and as per the say of the complainant on the same day after having a verbal altercation with only the accused No. 1, he had gone to the Virpur Police Station with his mother and had filed an application but there is no iota of evidence as to what has happened to that application and as to whether any inquiry or investigation was done qua the application of the complainant. Moreover, the complainant has categorically stated that there was a verbal altercation between him and the accused No. 1 as the accused No. 1 wanted to buy goods on credit and the complainant was insisting that he pay the amount for the goods in cash. It has also emerged on record that it was New Year's Day and there were many people, who were coming and going in the street but no independent witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution. It has also emerged that the brother of the complainant is a teacher and after he came, they had discussed about the complaint to be filed and he had filed the complaint as per the say of his brother. During the entire incident, there is no evidence on record that any caste-slurs were used by the accused and the caste certificate produced of the complainant has not been produced on record. During the entire incident, there is no evidence on record that any caste-slurs were used by the accused and the caste certificate produced of the complainant has not been produced on record. There is no iota of evidence that the complainant was a member of the scheduled caste or scheduled tribe and the Investigating Officer has admitted that he has not investigated about the application given by the complainant on 19-10- 2009 and it was also found that no weapons were used by any of the accused at the time of the incident. Prosecution Witness No. 2 Manguben Lebabhai Vankar and Prosecution Witness No. 3 Kodiben Kalabhai Vankar are the wife and the mother of the complainant respectively but they are not eyewitnesses to the incident as they both have stated that they were at the house and when they came, the incident had already occurred. There are major contradictions in the deposition of the complainant - Prosecution Witness No.1 Lebabhai Kalabhai Vankar, Prosecution Witness No.2 Manguben Lebabhai Vankar and Prosecution Witness No.3 Kodiben Kalabhai Vankar and the eyewitnesses Prosecution Witness No.4 Morarbhai Kanabhai Rohit and Prosecution Witness No.5 Vechatbhai Valabhai Parmar have both been have both not supported the case of the prosecution and have been declared hostile. The entire evidence of the prosecution has been appreciated by the learned trial Court in detail. 12] 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. 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. 13] The impugned judgement and order of acquittal passed by learned Special Judge & 4 th Additional Sessions Judge, Kheda in Special (ATRO) Case No. 67 of 2010 on 09.04.2012, is hereby confirmed. 14] Bail bond stands cancelled. Record and proceedings be sent back to the concerned Trial Court forthwith.