Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 976 (GUJ)

State of Gujarat v. Raval Prahladbhai Ambaram

2025-09-03

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), Mehsana (hereinafter referred to as “the learned Trial Court”) in Special Atrocity Case No. 7/2010 on 09.12.2010, whereby, the learned Trial Court has acquitted the respondents for the offence punishable under Sections 506(2) and 114 of Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 135 of the BP Act and Sections 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 On 27.12.2008 at around 02.30 am, the complainant - Bhurabhai Lavjibhai Senma was sleeping at his residence in Indiranagar at Santhal village and the accused no. 1 came armed with a sickle and the accused nos. 2 and 3 came armed with sticks and knocked the door of the house of the complainant and called the complainant outside of his house. They took him near the road and asked him why he was filing false cases against them and threatened to kill him. The accused also hurled caste slurs and the complainant filed the complaint at the Santhal Police Station under Sections 506(2) and 114 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 3(1)(10) of the Atrocity Act and Section 135 of the BP Act which came to be registered at Santhal Police Station II – C.R. No. 81/2008. The accused also hurled caste slurs and the complainant filed the complaint at the Santhal Police Station under Sections 506(2) and 114 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 3(1)(10) of the Atrocity Act and Section 135 of the BP Act which came to be registered at Santhal Police Station II – C.R. No. 81/2008. 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, Mehsana and as the said offences against the accused were exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the case was committed to the Sessions Court, Mehsana as per the provisions of Section 209 of Code of Criminal Procedure and the case was registered as Special Atrocity Case No. 7/2010 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. 5 was framed against the accused and the statements of the accused was recorded at Exhs. 6, 7 and 8 respectively, 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 10 witnesses and produced 14 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 Mr. Aditya Jadeja for the appellant State and learned advocate Mr. Ankit Shah for the respondent nos. 1 to 3. Perused the impugned judgement and order of acquittal and have re-appreciated the entire evidence of the prosecution on record of the case. 5. Learned APP Mr. Aditya Jadeja 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 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. 7. To prove the offence against the accused, the prosecution has in all examined ten witnesses. PW1 - Bhurabhai Lavjibhai Senma examined at Exh. 13 is the complainant who has narrated the facts as stated in the complaint which is produced at Exh. 14. In the cross-examination, the witness has stated that the incident has occurred in the dark at night and the house of the complainant is in a residential area and he has neighbours and there is a public road in front of his house. 14. In the cross-examination, the witness has stated that the incident has occurred in the dark at night and the house of the complainant is in a residential area and he has neighbours and there is a public road in front of his house. The place where his aunt resided was at a distance of about ten meters and nobody from the neighbours came. He does not have any relation with the accused from two to three years prior to the incident as his nephew was murdered and their relations had soured. He informed Natubhai - his brother- in-law residing at Kansara Kui, Taluka & District, Mehsana from the mobile of his neighbour Pasabhai and did not inform anyone about the incident and after Natubhai came, they decided to file the complaint. The accused were residing at a distance of about 30 minutes away from the house of the complainant and the weapons, as stated by the complainant, were easily available in the house of all the persons residing in the village. 7.1 PW2 - Kanubhai Shankarlal Patel examined at Exh. 15 and PW6 - Babuji Lakshmanji Thakur examined at Exh. 26 are the panch witnesses of the arrest panchnama which is produced at Exh. 16. Both the witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution and have been declared hostile. 7.2 PW3 - Hiraben Rajabhai examined at Exh. 20 is the aunt of the complainant and she has stated that she had come to her nephew's house as her other nephew Navneet had expired five days prior to the incident. On the day of the incident, her nieces Urmila and Sharda and she had slept and her nephew the complainant Bhikhabhai was sleeping outside of the house. Around 02.00 am, three persons came and knocked the door and her nephew got up and went outside and his wife Sharda also went outside. She too had gone out and three persons were standing who were armed with sticks and a sickle and they had threatened to kill her nephew as he had filed a false case against them. Her nephew had informed her about the names of the accused and he had filed the case against them. During the cross-examination the witnesses admitted that she does not know the persons of this village and she and her niece were in the house. Her nephew had informed her about the names of the accused and he had filed the case against them. During the cross-examination the witnesses admitted that she does not know the persons of this village and she and her niece were in the house. She had gone after five minutes and no one else had come out of the house. It was dark and she did not recognize the persons and she could not recognize them even today and her nephew who had expired had committed suicide. In the morning Natwarlal had come and then they decided to file the complaint. 7.3 PW4 - Shardaben Bhikhabhai examined at Exh. 21 is the wife of the complainant who has supported the case of the prosecution but during the cross-examination by the learned advocate for the accused, she has admitted that the accused resided at a distance of about half an hour from their house. At the time of the incident she was in the house and she is not an eyewitness to the incident and she came to know about the incident from her husband. 7.4 PW5 - Bhupendrakumar Shivabhai examined at Exh. 22 is the panch witness of the panchnama of the place of offence which is produced at Exh. 23. The witness has supported the case of the prosecution but has admitted that he is known to the complainant and is of the same caste as the complainant. 7.5 PW7 - Surendrasinh Ganpatsinh Zala examined at Exh. 27 and PW8 - Dashrathbhai Shivabhai Rawal examined at Exh. 29 are the panch witnesses of the panchnama by which a search was carried out at the house of the accused which is produced at Exh. 28. Both the witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution and have been declared hostile. 7.6 PW9 – Maheshbhai Mohanbhai Vaghela examined at Exh. 30 is the PSO who has registered the complaint and has produced the extract of the Station Diary at Exh. 31. 7.7 PW10 - Khimjibhai Saluji Baranda examined at Exh. 36 is the Investigating Officer who has narrated the procedure undertaken by him during investigation. During the cross examination the witness has stated that in the complaint it was not stated that any caste slurs were used and the place of incident is a public road is a residential area where many people of different castes reside. 8. 36 is the Investigating Officer who has narrated the procedure undertaken by him during investigation. During the cross examination the witness has stated that in the complaint it was not stated that any caste slurs were used and the place of incident is a public road is a residential area where many people of different castes reside. 8. On minute appreciation of the entire evidence of the prosecution in the complaint produced at Exh. 14, the complainant has not stated that any caste slurs were hurled against him at the time of the incident and the witnesses PW3 - Heeraben Rajabai and PW4 - Shardaben Bhikhabhai too have not stated that the accused had hurled any caste slurs against the complainant. PW3 - Heeraben Rajabai is not of the village and she did not know the accused and she could not identify the accused. Moreover, the incident has occurred as stated by the complainant at night at 02.30 am and it was dark and PW4 - Shardaben Bhikhabhai the wife of the complainant is not an eyewitness to the incident who has categorically stated that she was in the house. As per the case of the prosecution the incident has occurred in a residential area and there are many persons and neighbors but no independent witnesses have been examined by the prosecution and besides the bald statement of the complainant, there is nothing on record to suggest that the incident had occurred. As per the say of the complainant the accused had asked the complainant why he was filing false cases against them but there is nothing on record to suggest that any complaint was filed by the complainant at any point of time prior to the incident. The evidence that has emerged on record is that one Natwarbhai - the brother of the complainant had come and thereafter, they decided to file a complaint and the complainant had only informed Natwarbhai after the incident but the said Natwarbhai has not been examined as a witness on record. Moreover, there are major contradictions regarding the place where the complainant was sleeping and in the complaint produced at Exh. 14, the complainant has stated that he was sleeping inside the house whereas PW3 - Hiraben Rajabhai has stated that the complainant was sleeping outside. Moreover, there are major contradictions regarding the place where the complainant was sleeping and in the complaint produced at Exh. 14, the complainant has stated that he was sleeping inside the house whereas PW3 - Hiraben Rajabhai has stated that the complainant was sleeping outside. There is no clarification as to why if the complainant was sleeping outside of the house did the accused have to knock the door and there are major contradictions in the deposition of the witness and also the complaint which have all been considered by the learned Trial Court. 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), Mehsana in Special Atrocity Case No. 7/2010 on 09.12.2010, is hereby confirmed. 11. Bail bond stands cancelled. Record and proceedings be sent back to the concerned Trial Court forthwith.