Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 949 (GUJ)

State of Gujarat v. Dineshbhai Ravjibhai Tilva

2025-09-01

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 Special Judge, Atrocity Court, Junagadh (hereinafter referred to as “the learned Trial Court”) in Atrocity Sessions Case No. 7/2013 on 27.10.2016, whereby, the learned Trial Court has acquitted the respondents for the offence punishable under Sections 323 , 504 and 114 of Indian Penal Code , 1860, Section 135 of the G.P. Act 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 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 - Dayabhai Madhabhai Solanki had taken the work of plastering at the house of Girdharbhai Thobanbhai and on 03.01.2013 at about 15.00 hours when the complainant, his wife and brother were doing the work of plaster at the house of Girdharbhai Thobanbhai, the accused came and asked them why they were doing the work at that place. The accused also asked them why he had not given his vote to him in the elections and abused the complainant and took sticks and iron pipes and assaulted the complainant, his wife and his younger brother. The accused also hurled caste slurs and the complainant filed the complaint at the Manavadar Police Station under Section 323 , 504 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code , 1860, Section 135 of the B.P. Act and Section 3(1)(10) of the Atrocity Act which came to be registered at Manavadar Police Station II – C.R. No. 3001/2013. 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, Manavadar and as the said offences against the accused were exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the case was committed to the Sessions Court, Junagadh as per the provisions of Section 209 of Code of Criminal Procedure and the case was registered as Atrocity Sessions Case No. 7/2013. 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. 1 was framed against the accused and the statements of the accused was recorded at Exhs. 2, 3 and 4 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 15 witnesses and produced 18 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. 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 all 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 Mr. Yogeshkumar Ratanpara for the respondent nos. 1 to 3. 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. 4. Heard learned APP Ms. C.M. Shah for the appellant State and learned advocate Mr. Yogeshkumar Ratanpara for the respondent nos. 1 to 3. 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. 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 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. 7. To prove the offence against the accused, the prosecution has in all examined 12 witnesses. PW1 – Dr.Vipulkumar Savjibhai Paghdar examined at Exh. 12 was the Medical Officer at the Community Health Centre, Manavadar on duty on 03.01.2013 and he has stated that Dayabhai Madhabhai Solanki was brought for treatment by his relatives without a police yadi. In the history, he has stated that Dinu had assaulted him with an iron pipe between Sarangpipadi near Nadarkha Ni Gari at around 03.30 pm. He was assaulted with an iron pipe on the head as per his say and there was a CLW 0.25 cm x 2 cm on the tempo parietal region which was bleeding. There was swelling the left shoulder and many abrasions on the dorsal aspect of the left hand with bleeding. The witness has produced the medical certificate of Dayabhai Madhabhai Solanki at a at Exh. 13. There was swelling the left shoulder and many abrasions on the dorsal aspect of the left hand with bleeding. The witness has produced the medical certificate of Dayabhai Madhabhai Solanki at a at Exh. 13. At the same time Hansaben Dayabhai Solanki had also come for treatment and she had stated that she was assaulted with an iron pipe by Dinubhai at Sarangpipadi near Nadarkha Ni Gari at 3.30 pm. She had a CLW on her elbow, wrist and shoulder on the dorsal aspect with small abrasions. The witness has produced the medical certificate of Hansaben Dayabhai Solanki at Exh. 14. At the same time, Dhirubhai Madhabhai Solanki was also brought for treatment and in the history he too had stated that Dinubhai had assaulted him with an iron pipe at Sarangpipadi near Nadarkha Ni Gari. He had a CLW 0.25 cm x 1 cm on the dorsal aspect of right index finger which was bleeding and there was a restriction of movement of right index and there was a swelling on the left hand dorsal aspect with restriction of movement. The witness has produced the medical certificate of Dhirubhai Madhabhai Solanki at Exh. 15. The injuries were simple and could be sustained by an iron pipe. During the cross examination, the witness has admitted that the injury on Dayabhai Madhabhai could be sustained by any blunt object falling on the head and there was no injury found on the left shoulder of Dayabhai Madhabhai. The witness has also admitted that as per the certificate of Hansaben Dayabhai Solanki at Exh. 14, it was not mentioned on which elbow, wrist and shoulder were the injuries found and the injury on Dhirubhai Madhabhai could be sustained if the hand was stuck between any hard and blunt substance. 7.1 PW2 – Ambavibhai Arjanbhai Chauhan examined at Exh. 17 and PW3 – Hajabhai Chanabhai Makwana examined at Exh. 19 are the panch witnesses of the arrest panchnama produced at Exh. 18. Both the witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution and have been declared hostile. In the lengthy cross examination by the learned APP, the witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution. 7.2 PW4 – Niteshbhai Veljibhai Rathod examined at Exh. 20 and PW5 – Niteshbhai @ Balubhai Rudabhai Maru examined at Exh. 18. Both the witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution and have been declared hostile. In the lengthy cross examination by the learned APP, the witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution. 7.2 PW4 – Niteshbhai Veljibhai Rathod examined at Exh. 20 and PW5 – Niteshbhai @ Balubhai Rudabhai Maru examined at Exh. 22 are the panch witnesses of the panchnama of the place of offence which is produced at Exh. 21. Both the witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution and have been declared hostile and during the lengthy cross examination, nothing to support the case of the prosecution has come on record. 7.3 PW6 – Dayabhai Madhabhai Solanki examined at Exh. 26 is the complainant who has narrated the facts as stated in his complaint produced at Exh. 27. The witness has also produced his caste certificate at Exh. 28. During the cross examination by the learned advocate for the accused, the witness has stated that he was working at that place for the past seven to eight days but no one had stopped him from working and the elections of the Gram Panchayat were conducted prior to 1 – 1½ year before the incident. He was not a candidate for the election but the wife of the accused no. 1 was a candidate and she had lost. During the interim period i.e. after the elections till the time the incident occurred, there was no incident regarding the casting of votes in the election between the parties and the casting of vote is secret and no one can in whose favour the vote has been case. 7.4 PW7 – Shamlabhai Arjanbhai Kanderiya examined at Exh. 54 was working as a Junior Clerk at the Taluka Development Office, Manavadar Taluka Panchayat and he has produced the copy of the caste certificate of the complainant at Exh. 55, school leaving certificate of the complainant at Exh. 56, ration card at Exh. 57 and identity card at Exh. 58. During the cross examination, the witness has admitted that he did not prepare the certificate and it was prepared by some other clerk. 7.5 PW8 – Dhirubhai Madhabhai Solanki examined at Exh. 59 is the brother of the complainant and an injured eyewitness and he has supported the case of the prosecution. 57 and identity card at Exh. 58. During the cross examination, the witness has admitted that he did not prepare the certificate and it was prepared by some other clerk. 7.5 PW8 – Dhirubhai Madhabhai Solanki examined at Exh. 59 is the brother of the complainant and an injured eyewitness and he has supported the case of the prosecution. During the cross examination by the learned advocate for the accused, the witness has stated that he does not know at what rate was the work taken by his brother and he does not know for how many days he had worked at that place. The incident had occurred at around 03.00 pm and at that time, his brother and sister-in-law were working outside of the house. There was no grievance between Thobanbhai and the accused no. 1 and they are not relatives and after the incident they came back to their house and on the next day the police had come to their place and he had given his statement to the police as per the complaint of his brother. 7.6 PW9 – Hansaben Dayabhai Solanki examined at Exh. 63 is the wife of the complainant and she has supported the case of the prosecution. The witness has stated that the accused came and abused them, hurling caste slurs and gave two slaps to her husband and thereafter, he called the others and her husband was beaten on the head with an iron pipe and his head started bleeding and he had fallen unconscious. During the cross-examination by the learned advocate for the accused the witness has stated that they were doing the work of plastering of the wall and the person who had engaged them for the work did not have any objection to the same. The elections were held about four years before the incident and she did not see the pipe or the sticks. 7.7 PW10 – Girdharbhai Thobhanbhai examined at Exh. 66 and PW11 – Chandrikaben Girdharbhai Hingrajiya examined at Exh.67 have stated that they had given the work of plaster of their house to the complainant and his brother Dhirubhai and at that time they were working at his house and they were doing the plaster work but they do not know whether any incident had occurred. 66 and PW11 – Chandrikaben Girdharbhai Hingrajiya examined at Exh.67 have stated that they had given the work of plaster of their house to the complainant and his brother Dhirubhai and at that time they were working at his house and they were doing the plaster work but they do not know whether any incident had occurred. Both the witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution and have 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. 7.8 PW12 – Zaheruddin Gulabsel Saiyed examined at Exh. 70 is the Investigating Officer who has narrated in detail the procedure undertaken by him during investigation. 8. On minute appreciation of the entire evidence of the prosecution, as per the complaint, the complainant has stated that the incident has occurred at Sarangpipadi village at the house of Girdharbhai Thobanbhai where they were doing the work of plastering of the wall and thereafter, they had gone to the Community Health Centre, Manavadar for treatment where the complainant Dayabhai Madhabhai Solanki, injured Hansaben Dayabhai Solanki and injured Dhirubhai Madhabhai Solanki have all stated that the incident had occurred at Sarangpipadi near Nadarkha Ni Gari and they were assaulted by Dinubhai with an iron pipe. In the complaint which has been filed at 19.15 hours, the complainant has named three persons i.e. Dineshbhai Ravjibhai Patel, Harsukhbhai @ Bhupatbhai Ravjibhai Patel and Kevin Dineshbhai Patel and has stated that they were assaulted with sticks and iron pipe. It appears that the complainant and the others were known to the accused and they were doing the same type of work but the complainant has not named the accused in the manner in which they are named in the FIR produced at Exh. 27 and before the Medical Officer they have merely stated that they were assaulted by Dinubhai with an iron pipe. Moreover, in the complaint the complainant has stated that the accused no. 1 - Dineshbhai Ravjibhai Patel was armed with a stick and the accused no. 3 Kevin Dineshbhai Patel was armed with an iron pipe. There are major contradictions in the deposition of the complainant, witnesses and the complaint. As per the complaint the incident has occurred at the house of Girdharbhai Thobanbhai and if the panchnama of the place of offence produced at Exh. 3 Kevin Dineshbhai Patel was armed with an iron pipe. There are major contradictions in the deposition of the complainant, witnesses and the complaint. As per the complaint the incident has occurred at the house of Girdharbhai Thobanbhai and if the panchnama of the place of offence produced at Exh. 21 is perused, there were other houses nearby but no such witnesses have been examined before the learned Trial Court. The reason as stated by the complainant is the elections but as per the complainant the elections were held one to one and half year prior to the incident and PW9 - Hansaben Dayabhai Solanki has stated that the elections were held four years prior to the incident and during the interim period between the election and the incident, there was no any kind of enmity or incident between the parties. There are major contradictions in the evidence and the learned Trial Court has discussed the entire evidence in detail. 9. 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. 10. The impugned judgement and order of acquittal passed by the learned Special Judge, Atrocity Court, Junagadh in Atrocity Sessions Case No. 7/2013 on 27.10.2016, is hereby confirmed. 11. Bail bond stands cancelled. Record and proceedings be sent back to the concerned Trial Court forthwith.