Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 841 (GUJ)

State Of Gujarat v. Laxmanbhai Ambalal

2025-08-02

DEVAN M.DESAI, NIKHIL S.KARIEL

body2025
JUDGMENT : NIKHIL S. KARIEL, J. 1. Heard learned APP Mr. J.K. Shah for the appellant-State and learned Advocate Mr. Vatsal Prajapati for M/s Nanavaty Advocates for the respondents- original accused in Criminal Appeal No. 1027 of 2025 as well as learned Advocate Mr. Vatsal Prajapati for M/s Nanavaty Advocates for the appellant and learned APP Mr. J.K. Shah for the respondent-State in Criminal Appeal No. 363 of 2005. 2. At the outset, insofar as the Criminal Appeal No. 363 of 2005 is concerned, it is pointed out by learned Advocate Mr. Prajapati and learned APP Mr. Shah that the said Appeal had been preferred by original-accused No.1, who had been convicted vide judgment and order dated 28.01.2005 by the learned Sessions Court for offence punishable under Section 324 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and fine of Rs.20,000/- had also been imposed upon him, and in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment of one month and whereas upon payment of fine of Rs.20,000/-, Rs. 15000/- was directed to be paid to the injured victim as compensation. It is submitted by the learned Advocates that during pendency of the present conviction appeal, the appellant – original accused No.1 Laxmanbhai Ambalal Padhiar, is stated to have expired on 07.10.2020 and whereas while the said fact has been confirmed by the Investigating Officer, learned Advocate Mr. Prajapati, over and above the same, tenders copy of death certificate of the said appellant. Considering the same, the Criminal Appeal No. 363 of 2005 stands disposed of as abated. A copy of death certificate is directed to be taken on record. 3. Insofar as the Criminal Appeal No. 1027 of 2005 is concerned, the same has been preferred by the appellant-State against the judgment and order dated 28.01.2005 passed by the learned Joint District Judge and Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 4, Bharuch in Sessions Case No. 107 of 2004. 4. 3. Insofar as the Criminal Appeal No. 1027 of 2005 is concerned, the same has been preferred by the appellant-State against the judgment and order dated 28.01.2005 passed by the learned Joint District Judge and Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 4, Bharuch in Sessions Case No. 107 of 2004. 4. It is required to be mentioned here that FIR being I-C.R. No. 55 of 2002, came to be registered with the Amod Police Station on 11.06.2002 inter alia alleging that when some officers had visited the office of the Amod Taluka Panchayat to inquire about applications made by persons living below poverty line, at that time, the complainant was called there at around 5:30 p.m. and whereas he had met original accused No. 3 Ranjitsinh Maganbhai Padhiar, who is stated to have instigated the persons present there that the people belonging to Patidar (Patel) community were making applications, for the benefits. The allegation being that while an altercation had taken place, original accused No.2 had taken out a knife, which had been snatched by original accused No.1 (since deceased) who had inflicted a knife blow on the right side of chest of injured victim Shailesh. The allegation further being that when the complainant had intervened, the other accused, more particularly original accused No.4 is stated to have inflicted a fist blow on the right eye of the complainant and whereas insofar as another witness Nipunkumar Patel, who had intervened to save the injured victim Shailesh, the original accused No.4 is stated to have torn of his shirt and had also snatched a wrist watch from the left hand of the said witness. It appears that the FIR further records that the said injured victim Shailesh had been taken to a local hospital and whereafter, he had been taken to the Goverment Hospital, Amod and thereafter he had been taken to SSG Hospital, Baroda, for further treatment. 5. It appears that the FIR further records that the said injured victim Shailesh had been taken to a local hospital and whereafter, he had been taken to the Goverment Hospital, Amod and thereafter he had been taken to SSG Hospital, Baroda, for further treatment. 5. It appears that the FIR, had culminated into Sessions Case No. 107 of 2004 and whereas as noticed hereinabove, while the original accused No. 1 Laxmanbhai Ambalal Padhiar (since deceased), who had been convicted for offence punishable under Section 324 of the IPC, therefore the said accused had preferred an appeal challenging the conviction, whereas insofar as the remaining accused are concerned, the learned Sessions Court had returned a finding of acquittal, which has resulted in the State challenging the same by preferring an appeal against the acquittal being Criminal Appeal No. 1027 of 2005. 6. Learned APP Mr. J.K. Shah for the appellant-State would take this Court in great detail through the depositions of the complainant, the injured victim etc. and would submit that from the depositions of the said witnesses, it becomes clear that the chain of circumstances, which would implicate the present respondents – original accused Nos. 2 to 4, is clearly made out. Learned APP would submit that while the learned Sessions Court had believed that the original accused No.1 (since deceased) had inflicted a knife blow and whereas, the learned Sessions Court had committed a grave error in not believing that the respondents herein – original accused Nos. 2 to 4 had no role to play in the entire incident. Learned APP would suggest that such a finding of the learned Sessions Court is completely erroneous, more particularly, according to the learned APP, the presence of the present respondents is clearly established at the site of the incident. It is submitted by the learned APP that it was not a case of a fight between two persons as believed by the learned Sessions Court in the impugned decision and whereas it is submitted that it was an altercation, resulting in a free fight between two set of persons and whereas under such circumstances, since above is clearly made out from the evidence led by the witnesses, therefore, the impugned decision of the learned Sessions Court should be interfered with by this Court. 7. On the other hand, the present appeal is vehemently contested by learned Advocate Mr. 7. On the other hand, the present appeal is vehemently contested by learned Advocate Mr. Vatsal Prajapati on behalf of the respondents herein – original accused. Learned Advocate would submit that as such, there were no independent witnesses to the alleged incident. It is submitted that from the record it is clear that while the incident is alleged to have taken place within the premises of the Amod Taluka Panchayat, yet, neither the Talati-cum-Mantri nor the Peon, who ought to have been present, were present since according to their depositions, they had left for their residences. Learned Advocate would further take this Court through the relavant evidence and would submit that the entire FIR proceeds on the basis that the altercation had happened at the Amod Taluka Panchayat, more particularly when an officer had visited the Taluka Panchayat premises to inquire into complaints by certain persons. Learned Advocate would submit that examination of relevant depositions, would clearly point out to the fact that as such, there is no record available of any person from outside having visited the Amod Taluka Panchayat on the date of alleged incident. Learned Advocate would further submit that as such, the presence of the complainant itself, has not been believed by the learned Sessions Court. It is further submitted by the learned Advocate that a perusal of the depositions, of witnesses including the deposition of the first informant himself, would clearly reveal that there was no reason for the complainant to have remained present at the site in question, more particularly the complainant himself could not give any satisfactory explanation as regards his presence at the site of the incident. 7.1 Learned Advocate Mr. Prajapati would further submit that from the depositions of the treating Doctors and also of the Executive Magistrate, who had recorded the Dying Declaration of the injured victim, it is clear that the allegations by the victim, who sustained injuries, were only against one person i.e. the person who had been convicted for offence punishable under Section 324 of the IPC and who had subsequently expired. Learned Advocate would further point out that even the present respondents, as well as the accused who has already expired, have in their statements under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, where along with denying the allegations levelled against them, had raised a specific defence that the present respondents are attempted to be wrongly implicated on account of political rivalry and whereas learned Advocate would submit that the testimony of witnesses also clearly pointing out to the fact that there was a political rivalry the parties. Thus submitting, learned Advocate Mr. Prajapati would request that this Court may not interfere in the finding of the learned Sessions Court. 8. Heard the learned Advocates for the respective parties and perused the documents, more particularly the record and proceedings. 9. This Court would crave leave to refer to a recent decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mallappa and Others vs. State of Karnataka, reported in 2024 (3) SCC 544 , this Court has also relied the said decision in Criminal Appeal No.506 of 2001 dated 05.07.2025. Paragraph Nos.7, 7.1 and 7.2 being relevant for the present purpose are reproduced hereinbelow for benefit. “7. Having heard learned advocates for the respective parties, at the outset, before examining the submissions made by learned advocates for the respective parties, this Court would like to reiterate the principles which are to be kept in mind while considering an appeal against an order of acquittal. The principles as regards considerations which should weigh with the Appellate Court, having been reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in catena of judgments, this Court would crave leave to refer to a recent decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Mallappa and Others vs. State of Karnataka, reported in 2024 (3) SCC 544 . paragraph no.42 of the said decision, being relevant for the present purpose, is quoted hereinbelow for benefit:- “42. Our criminal jurisprudence is essentially based on the promise that no innocent shall be condemned as guilty. All the safeguards and the jurisprudential values of criminal law, are intended to prevent any failure of justice. paragraph no.42 of the said decision, being relevant for the present purpose, is quoted hereinbelow for benefit:- “42. Our criminal jurisprudence is essentially based on the promise that no innocent shall be condemned as guilty. All the safeguards and the jurisprudential values of criminal law, are intended to prevent any failure of justice. The principles which come into play while deciding an appeal from acquittal could be summarized as: (i) Appreciation of evidence is the core element of a criminal trial and such appreciation must be comprehensive – inclusive of all evidence, oral or documentary; (ii) Partial or selective appreciation of evidence may result in a miscarriage of justice and is in itself a ground of challenge; (iii) If the Court, after appreciation of evidence, finds that two views are possible, the one in favour of the accused shall ordinarily be followed; (iv) If the view of the Trial Court is a legally plausible view, mere possibility of a contrary view shall not justify the reversal of acquittal; (v) If the appellate Court is inclined to reverse the acquittal in appeal on a re-appreciation of evidence, it must specifically address all the reasons given by the Trial Court for acquittal and must cover all the facts; (vi) In a case of reversal from acquittal to conviction, the appellate Court must demonstrate an illegality, perversity or error of law or fact in the decision of the Trial Court. 7.1 A perusal of the above paragraph reveals the principles which have to be kept in mind while an Appellate Court decides an appeal against acquittal. The first issue being with regard to appreciation of evidence comprehensively and whereas, all the evidences including the oral, documentary evidences should necessarily be examined. The second principle being a corollary of the first principle namely in case there is a partial or selective appreciation, then it would result in a miscarriage of justice and would itself be a ground of challenge. Most importantly, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the third principle lays down that after appreciation of the evidence, if the appellate Court finds that two views are possible, then one in favour of the accused shall ordinarily be followed. Most importantly, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the third principle lays down that after appreciation of the evidence, if the appellate Court finds that two views are possible, then one in favour of the accused shall ordinarily be followed. Again, as a corollary thereof, it is laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that if the view of the learned Trial Court is a legally plausible view, then mere existence of a possibility of a contrary view would not be enough to justify the reversal of the acquittal. 7.2. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has further laid down that if the Appellate Court is of the opinion that the acquittal is to be reversed upon the reappreciation of the evidence, then the Appellate Court is required to specifically give reasons as regards not accepting the findings of the learned Trial Court as regards acquitting the accused. Again, most importantly, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has laid down that in case of reversing an acquittal to conviction, the Appellate Court should specifically demonstrate an illegality, perversity or error of law or fact in the decision of the learned Trial Court.” 10. Considering the impugned decision along with the depositions of the witnesses etc., from the perspective of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, this Court is of the considered opinion that there is neither any perversity nor any impossibility in the view taken by the learned Sessions Court and whereas under such circumstances, no interference is required. 11. This Court comes to the above conclusion on the basis of the findings, that the fact of such an incident having taken place, has not been deposed by any independent witnesses. It would appear that while the Talati-cum-Mantri as well as the Peon of the Amod Taluka Panchayat, who should have in normal circumstances been at the said premises clearly deposed that they were not present at the site when the incident happened, more particularly the said witnesses having returned to their residences, there does not appear to be any independent account of the incident. It would also appear that while the entire genesis of the incident is stated to be a visit by some outside officer to verify status as regards to BPL account holders, yet, there is enough material on record including the depositions of one Samatbhai Gogabhai, Piyushbhai Shah and Musabhai that on the fateful day, nobody from outside had visited the Amod Taluka Panchayat for verification as alleged in the FIR. 12. This Court has also considered the observations of the learned Sessions Court, whereby the learned Sessions Court concludes that the presence of the complainant at the site of the incident was doubtful, more particularly the learned Sessions Court noticing that the complainant could not justify his presence and though it is attempted to be stated that somebody was sent to call him, yet, the complainant could not satisfactorily explain his presence at the site of the incident. 13. Furthermore, this Court has analyzed the finding of the learned Sessions Court with regard to the injured victim and whereas the learned Sessions Court has clearly noted that the injured victim, had in his statement before the treating Doctors, at both the hospitals, had alleged that the injuries sustained by him was on account of a stab wound inflicted by original accused No.1 Laxmanbhai Padhiar (since deceased). The injured victim, reiterates the statement about the assault only by the deceased accused, and not by the present respondents – accused Nos. 2 to 4, in his Dying Declaration to be Executive Magistrate. It also appears to this Court that the present respondents as well as the deceased accused had given a specific statement under Section 313 of the Cr.PC., where all the accused in addition to denying the allegations levelled against them, had given a positive statement that they were being falsely implicated on account of political rivalry. 14. This Court has considered the judgment of the learned Sessions Court and whereas this Court finds that the learned Sessions Court while convicting the deceased accused for offence punishable under Section 324 of the IPC, had returned the finding of acquittal in favour of the present respondents. 14. This Court has considered the judgment of the learned Sessions Court and whereas this Court finds that the learned Sessions Court while convicting the deceased accused for offence punishable under Section 324 of the IPC, had returned the finding of acquittal in favour of the present respondents. It also appears that the conviction insofar as the original accused No.1 (since deceased) was under Section 324 and not under Section 307 of the IPC, was in context of deposition by a treating Doctor who had stated that the injured victim Shaileshbhai had taken discharge against medical advise and whereas the treating Doctor had also deposed that the injury sustained by the said Shaileshbhai could not be stated to be a grievous injury. 15. The learned Sessions Court having taken a very balanced approach, more particularly by convicting one of the accused and by holding that other accused are acquitted, to this Court it would appear that there are no two views possible rather the view taken by the learned Sessions Court appears to be the correct and possible view. This Court also as noticed hereinabove, does not find that any perversity or impossibility has been committed by the learned Sessions Court in the impugned decision. 16. Furthermore, this Court is conscious of the fact that the incident in question is alleged to have taken place sometimes on 11.06.2002, i.e. approximately 23 years earlier. The learned Sessions Court had passed the impugned decision on 28.01.2005, i.e. approximately two decades back. To this Court it would appear that while there is no perversity or impossibility insofar the decision of the learned Sessions Court is concerned, yet, even otherwise, the factum of such a huge time period, which has elapsed in the interregnum, would also weigh with this Court while passing this decision. 17. Having regard to the above discussion, to this Court no case for interference being made out, since this Court feels that the learned Sessions Court, was well justified in acquitting the present respondents – original accused Nos. 2 to 4, since the prosecution could not prove the case against them beyond reasonable doubt, hence the present appeal is disposed of as dismissed. 18. Criminal Appeal No. 363 of 2005 is disposed of as having abated.