Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 913 (GUJ)

State Of Gujarat v. Pravinbhai Mohanbhai Vaghela

2025-08-21

S.V.PINTO

body2025
JUDGMENT : S.V. PINTO, J. 1. The appeal is filed by the appellant State under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the judgement and order of acquittal passed by the learned 7th Additional Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Jamnagar (hereinafter referred to as “the learned Trial Court”) in Special Criminal (Atrocity) Case No. 33/2011 on 25.06.2013, whereby, the learned Trial Court has acquitted the respondents for the offence punishable under Sections 323 , 324, 504 and 114 of INDIAN PENAL CODE , 1860 and Section 3(1)(10) of Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as “the Atrocity Act” for short). 1.1 During the pendency of the appeal, the respondent no. 2 has expired and as per the order dated 21.09.2022 of this Court, the appeal qua the respondent no. 2 has become infructuous and has been disposed off. 1.2 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 18.06.2011 at around 19.45 hours, Pritesh - the son of the accused no. 1 was shouting abuses in Hirasar Vaas opposite the house of the complainant - Manojbhai Bhikhabhai Dagra. The complainant went to tell the accused no. 1 and at that time the accused no. 1 got angry and assaulted the complainant. Gauriben - the sister-in-law of the complainant intervened and while the accused no. 1 was trying to assault the complainant with a scissor, Gauriben got injured on the middle finger of her left hand. The accused no. 2 was also abusing the complainant and both the accused were hurling caste slurs against the complainant. The complainant Manoj Bhikhabhai Dagra filed the complaint at Jamnagar City "A" Division Police Station under Sections 323 , 324, 504 and 114 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE , 1860 and Section 3(1)(10) of the Atrocity Act which came to be registered at Jamnagar City "A" Division Police Station I – C.R. No. 204 of 2011. The complainant Manoj Bhikhabhai Dagra filed the complaint at Jamnagar City "A" Division Police Station under Sections 323 , 324, 504 and 114 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE , 1860 and Section 3(1)(10) of the Atrocity Act which came to be registered at Jamnagar City "A" Division Police Station I – C.R. No. 204 of 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 Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamnagar and as the said offences against the accused were exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the case was committed to the Sessions Court, Jamnagar as per the provisions of Section 209 of Code of Criminal Procedure and the case was registered as Special Criminal (Atrocity) Case No. 33/2011 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. 3 was framed against the accused and the statements of the accused was recorded at Exhs. 4 and 5, 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 13 witnesses and produced 9 documentary evidences on record in support of their case 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 was recorded, wherein, the accused refused to step into the witness box but stated that they wanted to examine one witness and examined one defence witness on his behalf. 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 judgement and order was pleased to acquit both the accused from the charges levelled 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 judgement and order was pleased to acquit both the accused from the charges levelled 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 Ms. C.M. Shah for the appellant State and learned advocate Ms. Hastee Doshi for learned advocate Mr. P.P. Majmudar for the respondent no. 1. 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. C.M. Shah 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. 6. Learned advocate Ms. Hastee Doshi for learned advocate Mr. P.P. Majmudar for the respondents 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. 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. 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. To prove the offence against the accused, the prosecution has in all examined 13 witnesses. PW1 - Manoj Bhikhabhai Dagra examined at Exh. 12 is the complainant who has narrated the facts stated in the complaint which is produced at Exh. 13. The complainant has stated that the accused were abusing him but he has not stated in the cross examination that the accused were hurling casts slurs against him. During the cross examination by the learned advocate for the accused, the witness has admitted that he and his brothers were produced before the Executive Magistrate on the same day of the incident. 8.1 PW2 - Dr. Rakhalchandra Gopeschandra Dutt examined at Exh. 15 is the CMO of G.G. Hospital, Jamnagar who has stated that on 18.06.2011 at around 07.50 pm, Gauriben Dhanjibhai was brought to him for treatment and in the history she had stated that she was assaulted by Praveenbhai on 18.06.2011 at 07.45 pm. She had a injury on the injury on the left middle finger 0.5 cm x 1 centimeter long. It was a fresh injury and she was treated and discharged. During the cross examination, the witness has stated that the injury was such that would be sustained by a housewife while working. 8.2 PW3 - Husainbhai Bodubhai Khafi examined at Exh. 19 is the panch witness of the panchnama of the place of offense which is produced at Exh. 20. During the cross examination, the witness has stated that the injury was such that would be sustained by a housewife while working. 8.2 PW3 - Husainbhai Bodubhai Khafi examined at Exh. 19 is the panch witness of the panchnama of the place of offense which is produced at Exh. 20. 8.3 PW4 - Gauriben Dhanjibhai Dagra examined at 24 is the injured eyewitness and sister-in-law of the complainant Manojbhai who has stated that at the time of the incident, she was in her house working and as she heard some shouts, she came outside and she sustained an injury with the scissor which was in the possession of the accused no. 2. She had gone to the hospital and besides that she does not know any other details of the incident. During the cross examination the witness has admitted that at the time of the incident she was working in her house and thereafter, she went to buy some goods. She was injured with the scissor in her shop and on the date of the incident she did not go to the shop of the accused and she did not sustain any injury at the shop of the accused. 8.4 PW5 – Amad Dostmamad examined at Exh. 25 is an eyewitness as per the case of the prosecution and he has stated that he had gone to purchase some goods and he witnessed the quarrel between the accused and the complainant and both the accused assaulted Rekhaben with a scissor. He intervened and the accused were hurling caste slurs and Rekhaben was taken to G.G. Hospital. During the cross examination by the learned advocate for the accused the witness has stated that he knows the complainant for the past six to seven years and he did not inquire from any person about the incident. 8.5 PW6 - Ibrahimbhai Siddikbhai examined at Exh. 26 is 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. 8.6 PW7 - Nathabhai Malshibhai Dagra examined at Exh. 27 has stated that he was at his house and he heard some shouts and when he came out he saw a dispute going on between the accused no. 1 and complainant. The accused no. 8.6 PW7 - Nathabhai Malshibhai Dagra examined at Exh. 27 has stated that he was at his house and he heard some shouts and when he came out he saw a dispute going on between the accused no. 1 and complainant. The accused no. 1 had a scissor and Gauriben intervened and she was injured with the scissor and there were a number of persons who had gathered there. During the cross examination by the learned advocate for the accused the witness has stated that he knows everyone from the house of the complainant but there is no one called Rekhaben in her house. The witness has also admitted that in his statement before the police he did not state that any caste slurs were hurled by the accused. 8.7 PW8 - Ghanshyamsinh Anoopsinh Sarvaiya examined at Exh. 30 is the Police Sub-Inspector who has recorded the statement of the complaint of the complainant. 8.8 PW9 - Gajendrasinh Gajubha Jadeja examined at Exh. 31 was working as the Senior Clerk at the Social Welfare Office and he has produced the caste certificate of the complainant at Exh. 32 and the caste certificate of the injured Gauriben at Exh. 33. During the cross examination by the learned advocate for the accused the witness has stated that the police did not send any yadi for the caste certificates at Exh. 32 and Exh. 33. If a person who requires a caste certificate, he/she has to file an application in the office with the necessary government record and the same is not verified by the office. The caste certificate is merely given on the basis of the documents submitted by the applicant. 8.9 PW10 – Vanrajsinh Lakhubha Jadeja examined at Exh. 34 is the PSO who has registered the complaint. The witness has stated that on 18.06.2011 at around 00.15 hours, the complaint came to be filed and the same was entered in the Station Diary and the witness has produced the extract of the Station Diary at Exh. 35. During the cross examination by the learned advocate for the accused the witness has admitted that on the same day at about 01.30 hours, Pritesh Praveenbhai Vaghela had filed a complaint against Manojbhai Bhikhabhai Dagra, Dhanjibhai Dagra, Shaileshbhai Dagra and the offence was registered under Sections 323 and 504 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE , 1860. 35. During the cross examination by the learned advocate for the accused the witness has admitted that on the same day at about 01.30 hours, Pritesh Praveenbhai Vaghela had filed a complaint against Manojbhai Bhikhabhai Dagra, Dhanjibhai Dagra, Shaileshbhai Dagra and the offence was registered under Sections 323 and 504 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE , 1860. It was alleged that Dhanjibhai Dagra and Shaileshbhai Dagra had assaulted the grandfather of Pritesh Praveenbhai with a knife and a stick and the complaint was registered at Khambaliya Gate Police Station and the same was entered in the Station Diary Entry No. 5 on 19.06.2011. The witness has admitted that when the complainant came to file the complaint, there were no caste certificates attached with the complaint. 8.10 PW11 - Dhanji Bhikhabhai Dagra examined at Exh. 38 is the brother of the complainant who has stated that at the time of the incident the accused no. 1 had a scissor and his wife was injured on the middle finger of her left hand with the scissor. During the cross examination by the learned advocate for the accused the witness has stated that he is an advocate by profession and he has denied that any complaint was filed on 18.06.2011 by the son of the accused no. 1. 8.11 PW12 - Dilipbhai Rajubhai Dagra examined at Exh. 39 has stated that he had gone for work and when he returned, he found a number of persons had gathered in front of his house and he was informed that the incident had taken place. During the cross examination the witness has admitted that he had returned home around 08.00 pm and Gauriben was not present and Manojbhai had told him that she had gone to the G.G. Hospital. 8.12 PW13 - Nareshkumar Dhanjibhai Ninama examined at Exh. 42 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 admitted that there was a cross case filed in this matter and he has not stated as to how the caste certificates of the complainant came to his possession. 42 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 admitted that there was a cross case filed in this matter and he has not stated as to how the caste certificates of the complainant came to his possession. He has not verified the caste certificates or recorded the statements of any officials with regard to the caste certificates and he had received the zerox copies but he did not make any efforts to get the original of the caste certificates. During investigation it was found that the injury to Gauriben was sustained as she tried to catch the scissor and during investigation it was not found that the accused no. 1 tried to assault anyone with a scissor and Gauriben was injured. Moreover, it was found that the incident had occurred in front of the shops of the accused and the complainant on the road. 9. After the closing pursis of the prosecution was filed, the further statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was recorded wherein the accused denied all the evidence of the case of the prosecution and refused to step into the witness box but stated that they wanted to examine one witness and have examined defense witness Dr. Rakhalchandra Gopeshchandra Datta at Exh. 56. The witness was working as a CMO in G.G. Hospital and he has stated that on 18.06.2011, Pritesh Pravinbhai was brought for treatment and in the history the witness has stated that he was assaulted by fist and kicks on the abdomen by Manojbhai. He had sustained a blunt trauma on the epigastric region, abdomen and chest and has produced the medical certificate of Pritesh Pravinbhai at Exh. 57. 10. One minute appreciation of the entire evidence of the prosecution, it has emerged on record that the complainant in his deposition has not stated that any of the accused had hurled caste slurs against him and as per the case of the prosecution, the scissor by which Gauriben was injured was with the accused no. 1 but PW4 - Gauriben Dhanjibhai Dagra – the injured witness has stated that the scissor was in the hand of the accused no. 2 and she sustained an injury with the scissor. 1 but PW4 - Gauriben Dhanjibhai Dagra – the injured witness has stated that the scissor was in the hand of the accused no. 2 and she sustained an injury with the scissor. As per the case of the prosecution, the incident has occurred on 18.06.2011 but if the caste certificate produced at Exh. 33 is perused it is dated 09.07.2011 i.e. after the filing of the complaint. PW5 - Amad Dostmamad has stated that the accused had assaulted Rekhaben but there is no person named Rekhaben in the entire evidence of the prosecution. There are major contradictions about who had the possession of the scissor and even the injured states that she got hurt by the scissor. Moreover, the complaint does not exactly state the place of incident and the place of incident is not exactly proved as some of the witnesses have stated the incident had taken place at the shop of the accused whereas some of the witnesses say that the incident had taken place at the shop of the complainant. In the entire evidence there does not appear to be an intention of the accused to inflict injury on any person and it has also emerged on record that a cross case was filed wherein it was alleged that the complainant and his father had tried to assault the son of the accused no. 1 with a knife and stick and he had taken treatment at G.G. hospital, Jamnagar. 11. In view of the settled position of law, 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. 12. 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. 12. The impugned judgement and order of acquittal passed by the learned 7th Additional Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Jamnagar in Special Criminal (Atrocity) Case No. 33/2011 on 25.06.2013, is hereby confirmed. 13. Bail bond stands cancelled. Record and proceedings be sent back to the concerned Trial Court forthwith.