Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Raghuvirsinh Madhavsinh Gohil on 15 July, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1548/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL (AGAINST ACQUITTAL) NO. 1548 of 2013
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE S.V. PINTO
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
No
==========================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
RAGHUVIRSINH MADHAVSINH GOHIL & ANR.
================================================================
Appearance:
MR. PRANAV DHAGAT, APP for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR RJ GOSWAMI(1102) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1
NOTICE SERVED THRU CONCERNED POLICE STATION for the
Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 2
================================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE S.V. PINTO
Date : 15/07/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1] This appeal has been filed by the appellant – State under Section
378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the judgement and
order of acquittal passed by learned Special Judge, Narmada (hereinafter
referred to as “the learned Trial Court”) in Special (Atrocity) Case No. 1
of 2013 on 26.07.2013, whereby, the learned trial Court has acquitted the
respondents for the offence punishable under Sections 323, 504, and 427
of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereafter referred to as “IPC” for short),
Section Section 3(1)(10) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as “Atrocities
Page 1 of 20
Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Thu Jul 17 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 17 21:59:13 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1548/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2025
undefined
Act”) and Section 135 of the Gujarat Police Act.
1.1] The respondent is hereinafter referred to as the accused as he
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 Hardikbhai Valusingh Vasava had taken
his motorcycle No. GJ-22-B-2207 on 20.09.2012 at around 6 p.m. and
had gone from his house to the market. He completed his work and was
returning home and at around 23:00 Hrs., while he was on the road of
Sharma complex, Near Santosh Crossroads, Rajpipla, the accused came
with his motorcycle in front of the motorcycle of the complainant and
when the complainant halted his motorcycle, he abused him and took out
a knife from his pocket and hit the same on the right hand wrist of the
accused and on the left side back shoulder of the complainant and also
caused damage to the motorcycle of the complainant. At that time
Sandeepbhai Kishorebhai Vasava and Harshiddhbhai – the brother of the
complainant came and took him to the Government Hospital at Rajpipla
and the complainant filed the complaint at Narmada Police Station under
Sections 323, 504 and 427 of IPC, 1860 and Section 3(1)(10) of the
Atrocities Act” and Section 135 of the G.P.Act., which was registered as
Narmada Police Station being I – C.R.No. 147 of 2012.
Page 2 of 20 Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Thu Jul 17 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 17 21:59:13 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1548/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2025 undefined 2.2] The Investigating Officer recorded the statements of the
connected witnesses and seized the necessary documents and after
completion of investigation, a chargesheet came to be filed before the
Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rajpipla and as the said offences
against the accused was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the
case was committed to the Sessions Court, Narmada as per the provisions
of Section 209 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and case was registered
Special (Atrocities) Case No. 1 of 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. 4 was
framed against the accused and the statement of the accused was recorded
at Exh. 5, wherein, the accused denied all the contents of the charge and
the entire evidence of the prosecution was taken on record.
2.4] The prosecution produced thirteen oral evidences and twenty
four documentary evidences to bring home the charge against the accused
and after the learned Additional Public Prosecutor filed the closing pursis
at Exh. 83, 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 prosecution on record. The accused refused
Page 3 of 20
Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Thu Jul 17 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 17 21:59:13 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1548/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2025
undefined
to step into the witness box or examine witnesses on his behalf and stated
that a false case has been filed against him. 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 the accused from all the charges leveled
against him.
3] Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said judgement
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.
Page 4 of 20 Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Thu Jul 17 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 17 21:59:13 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1548/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2025 undefined 4] Heard learned APP Mr. Pranav Dhagat Shah for the
appellant State and learned advocate Mr. H.A. Qureshi for learned
advocate Mr. R.J.Goswami for the respondent No.1. Though served, the
respondent No. 2 – original complainant has not appeared either in person
or through an advocate. 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 Mr. Pranav Dhagat 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. 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. The order passed by the learnned 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.
6] Learned advocate Mr. H.A. Qureshi appearing for the
respondent No. 1 submits that the judgment and order has been passed
Page 5 of 20
Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Thu Jul 17 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 17 21:59:13 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1548/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2025
undefined
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.
7] 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”. (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 againstPage 6 of 20
Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Thu Jul 17 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 17 21:59:13 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATIONR/CR.A/1548/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2025
undefined
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.
8] 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 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.
Page 7 of 20 Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Thu Jul 17 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 17 21:59:13 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1548/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2025 undefined 9] In light on the above settled principles of law and
considering the evidence on the prosecution, to bring home the charge
against the accused, the prosecution has examined Prosecution Witness
No.1 – Bhupatsinh Mansinh Gohil at Exh.8 and Prosecution Witness
No.4 Hitendrasinh Bhadrasinh Gohil at Exh.16. Both the witnesses are
the panch-witnesses of the arrest panchnama, by which, the accused was
arrested which is produced at Exhibit 9. 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.
9.1] Prosecution Witness No. 2 – Sachinbhai Ramanbhai
Prajapati examined at Exh.10 is the panch-witness of the panchnama of
the place of offence, which is produced at Exh.11. The witness has
supported the case of the prosecution but in the cross-examination he has
admitted that he was taken to the Rajpipla Police Station and asked to
affix his signature on a ready panchnama and he did not go to any place
of offence. He does not know what was written in the panchnama as he
had not read the same.
9.2] Prosecution Witness No. 3 – Hardik Valusinh Vasava
examined at Exh.14 is the complainant, who has fully supported the
complaint and has stated that at the time of the incident, the accused
Page 8 of 20
Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Thu Jul 17 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 17 21:59:13 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1548/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2025
undefined
hurled caste-slurs and also threatened to cut him with a sword. At that
time Bhavik and Kaushik had come and the accused left abusing him.
The complainant has stated that the accused had damaged his vehicle
with a stone. He had filed the complaint, which is produced at Exh.15
and has stated that his statement was recorded on the next day by the
Dy.S.P., wherein, he has stated that caste -slurs were hurled against him.
In the cross-examination, the complainant has admitted that the accused
is working in R.P.L. company and the market in Rajpipla closes by 9
p.m. He does not remember what conversation he had with the Medical
Officer and Sandeep and Harshid came after about half an hour. A
number of cases are filed against him and a criminal complaint has also
been filed by one girl against him. When he was injured, he was bleeding
and his clothes were blood-stained but the police did not recover his
blood stains clothes and has received an amount of Rs.6,200/- from the
government as compensation.
9.3] Prosecution Witness No. 5 – Bhavikkumar Vinodbhai Doshi
examined at Exh.19, is an eyewitness to the incident. As per the say of
the complainant in his deposition, Bhavikkumar Vinodbhai Doshi and
Kaushik Ambalal Bhatiya had come to the place of incident and they
were the eye-witnesses about to the incident. The witness has stated that
on the 20th he and his friend Kaushik had gone to Ganpati and they had
Page 9 of 20
Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Thu Jul 17 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 17 21:59:13 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1548/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2025
undefined
gone to Limda Chowk and thereafter to Vishwakarma Temple at Sadak
Fadiya and while they were returning a quarrel had taken place between
the complainant and the accused. They had a quarrel about riding the
motorcycle in front of each other and they were abusing and hitting each
other. He does not know, who was abusing whom and who was hitting
whom as it was dark and many people had gathered there. The accused
had injured the complainant on the left hand wrist and on the back and
thereafter he and Kaushik returned home. The witness has not supported
the case of the prosecution and has been declared hostile and during the
cross-examination by the learned advocate for the accused, the witnesses
has refused to identify the accused and has stated that the person who is
sitting in the Court looked like Raghu and was known by the name of
Raghu. During the cross-examination by the learned advocate for the
accused, the witness has stated that as they heard the sounds of quarrel
they had gone and found the complainant lying on the ground and his
motorcycle was also on the ground. There was a crowd of people and
there was no person with a bike standing there. The witness has stated
that he had seen the knife for the first time in the Court and there are two
to three hospitals at Santosh Crossroads.
Page 10 of 20 Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Thu Jul 17 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 17 21:59:13 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1548/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2025 undefined 9.4] Prosecution Witness No. 6 - Kaushik Ambalal Bhatia
examined at Exh.20 is another eyewitness as per the case of the
prosecution and he has supported the version of the complainant.
During the cross-examination, the witness has admitted that, there
was a lot of traffic at the place of incident and as they came to know that
there was a quarrel, they had gone there. There was no blood at the place
of incident and he had not shown the Dy.S.P. any place where blood had
fallen.
9.5] Prosecution Witness No. 7 – Sandeep Kishorebhai Vasava
examined at Exh.7 is a hearsay witness and he has stated that the
complainant had telephoned him and informed him that the accused had
injured him with a knife and had called him immediately to the place of
incident and he had gone and taken the complainant with Harshiddhbhai
to the hospital.
During the cross-examination, the witness has stated that the
complainant is his cousin and he is not an eyewitness to the incident. In
his statement recorded by the Investigating Officer did not state that he
came to know about the incident from Bhavik and Kaushik and the
witness has admitted that prior to the incident, he had filed a complaint
against one Udaysingh Jamadar, who was the Investigating Officer of
this case. His statement was recorded by the same Udaysingh Jamadar.
Page 11 of 20 Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Thu Jul 17 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 17 21:59:13 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1548/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2025 undefined 9.6] Prosecution Witness No. 8 - Hemantkumar Jagdishbhai
Vasava examined at Exh.22 is the panch witness of the panchnama of the
place of offence and the witness has fully supported the case of the
prosecution but during the cross-examination, he has stated that he and
Sachinbhai had signed the panchnama at the same place and the police
had called him to be a panch witness and Sandeep is his friend.
9.7] Prosecution Witness No. 9 – Maheshbhai Dayabhai Tadpada
examined at Exh.25 is the Medical Officer, who has stated that he was on
duty on 21-09-2012 at about 12-05 when Hardikbhai Valusingh Vasava
was brought for treatment. In the history, he had stated that Raghubhai of
Gopalpura had assaulted him with a knife at around 11 pm and on
examination there was an incised wound on the left forearm lower third
region which was 3 centimetre x 0.5 centimetre and 2 centimetre x 0.5
centimetre muscle deep. There was one incised wound over the left
scapular region 2 centimetre x 0.5 centimetre muscle deep and the
injuries were caused with a sharp cutting object. The patient was seen by
the orthopedic surgeon and transferred to S.S.G. Hospital Vadodara and
the injury certificate of the complainant is produced at Exh.26.
During the cross examination, the witness has stated that three
persons had come along with the patient and he was fully conscious and
if a person would fall down from a motorcycle, he could sustain the
Page 12 of 20
Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Thu Jul 17 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 17 21:59:13 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1548/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2025
undefined
injury as injury No.2 and when the patient came to him, the wounds were
slightly bleeding.
9.8] Prosecution Witness No. 10 – Dr. Shweta Rakeshbhai Shah
examined at Exh.27 is the Medical Officer of S.S.G. Hospital, Vadodara
and she has stated that on 21.09.2012 at around 08:40 hours, the
complainant was brought for treatment and in the history given was of
assault by Raghubhai with knife at 11 p.m. on 20.09.2012 at Rajpipala.
The patient was conscious and well oriented to time, place and person
and he had a sutured wound on the left scapular region, a two sutured
wounds on the left forehand 2 centimetre and 3 centimetre. The witness
has produced the medical certificate at Exh.28 and during the cross
examination, the witness has stated that the injuries were simple in
nature and as they were sutured, she had not opened the same and cannot
say anything about the inside of the injury. The injuries could be caused a
by glass, fiber or an iron sheet but she cannot she cannot conclusively
say whether they could be caused by them as the primary treatment was
given by another doctor.
9.9] Prosecution Witness No. 11 – Rameshbhai Bhaijibhai Rohit
examined at Exh.30 is the PSO, who had registered the complaint and
has produced the FIR at Exh.31 and the extract of the Station Diary at
Exh.32
Page 13 of 20
Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Thu Jul 17 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 17 21:59:13 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1548/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2025
undefined
9.10] Prosecution Witness No. 12 – Udaysingh Amarsingh Rathod
examined at Exh.34 was working as the Unarmed Head Constable in
Rajpipala Town and he has stated that on 20.09.2012, while he was in
night patrolling he was informed that a patient named Hardik Valusingh
Vasava was injured by a knife at Sharma Complex in Rajpipala and he
was taken for treatment to the Government Hospital. He went to the
hospital and met the injured and the injured had filed the complaint,
which was recorded by him. That he had prepared the panchnama of the
place of offence and thereafter he had investigated and recorded the
statements of the connected witnesses and as per the order of Police
Inspector dated 02.10.2012 as the case was under the Atrocity Act, the
report to add the Sections of the Atrocity Act was sent and the
investigation was taken over by the Dy.S.P.(SCST Cell).
During the cross examination, the witness has stated that he did
not know the complainant prior to the incident and he had recorded the
complaint at the hospital and thereafter reached the Police Station. In the
complaint, the complainant had not given the names of Kaushikbhai
Bhatia or Bhavikbhai Doshi as eyewitnesses and when he had
recorded the statement of the complainant on 21.09.2012, he knew that
the offence was under the Atrocity Act. No blood marks were found at
the place of incident and the complainant and Bhavik are both friends
Page 14 of 20
Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Thu Jul 17 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 17 21:59:13 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1548/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2025
undefined
and one Nandiniben of Rabariwad had filed a complaint against both of
them but he does not know about the same that he had kept the
investigation with him till 02.10.2012 and the statements of all the
witnesses named in the charge sheet were recorded by him. He had not
seized the motorcycle of the accused and Sandeep Kishorebhai had filed
a complaint against him as he had an offence registered at Rajpipla
Police Station I-C.R.No.4 of 2012 under Sections 332, 353, 186, 323,
504, 506 (2) and 114 of the IPC.
9.11] Prosecution Witness No. 13 – Hassan Ali Rasoolbhai
Kadivala examined that Exh.52 is the Investigating Officer, who had
taken over the investigation from Prosecution Witness No.12 –
Udaysingh Amarsinh Rathod and has stated that when the investigation
was handed over to him all the papers including the statements of
witnesses and the complainant were already recorded and all the
statements of all the persons named in the charge-sheet have been
recorded by Prosecution Witness No. 12 Unarmed Head Constable
Udaysingh Amarsinh Rathod. He had not recorded the statements of any
other person and during investigation it was found that the accused was
working in the RPL. The witness has admitted that there are many cases
filed against the complainant and witness Bhavik. The Investigating
Officer has produced the caste certificate of the complainant at Exh.53.
Page 15 of 20 Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Thu Jul 17 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 17 21:59:13 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1548/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2025 undefined
After the evidence of the prosecution was closed the further
statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 was recorded, wherein, the accused has denied all the
allegations and evidence made against him and has stated that he was not
present at the time of the incident and he is working in the RPL. The
accused refused to step into the witness box but stated that he wanted to
examine witnesses on his behalf.
9.12] The accused has examined Defense Witness No. 1
Anjankumar Behra who was working as the Personnel Officer in RPL
and he has produced the attendance sheet of the accused at Exh.62. The
certificate regarding the attendance of the accused on 20.09.2012 at
Exh.63 and the salary-slip of the accused at Exh.64. The witness has
stated that the accused was working in the plant of the company and on
20.09.2012, he had entered the company at 14:01 hours and had left the
plant at 22:24 Hrs.
9.13] Defence Witness No.2 Raisingbhai Bhimabhai Pagi
examined at Exh.69 was working as a driver of Ovesh Travels and on
20.09.2012 and he had left the RPL company driving bus No. GJ-16-Y-
9485 and had reached to Rajpipla at around 11.30. The witness has stated
that the accused was in his bus on 20.09.2012.
Page 16 of 20 Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Thu Jul 17 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 17 21:59:13 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1548/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2025 undefined 9.14] Defence Witness No.3 Chagansinh Bhavarsinh Shekhawat
examined at Exh.71 was working as a Security Chief in R.P.L. Company
and he has stated that bus No. GJ-16-Y-9485 belonging to Ovesh
company was commuting between Rajpipla and R.P.L. Company and bus
No. GJ-16-Y-9485 had left the company at 20:30 Hrs.
9.15] Defence Witness No. 4 Hirabhai Gendalbhai Damor
examined at Exh. 78 was working as a Police Inspector at Rajpipla
Police Station and the witness has produced a statement regarding the
cases filed by the complainant and against the complainant and others at
Exh.79 and as per the statement two complaints have been filed by the
complainant and three complaints have been filed against the
complainant. The mother of the complainant has also filed three
complaints out of that two have been filed against the present accused.
9.16] Defence Witness No. 5 Yarifbhai Haji Ahmad Vora
examined at Exh. 82 was the owner of Ovesh travels and his vehicles
were on contract at the RPL Company.
10] On minute appreciation of the entire evidence of the
prosecution, the complainant has stated that the accused was present at
the time of the incident and the quarrel has taken place due to riding of
the motorcycles in front of each other and in the complaint the witness
has not stated that two eyewitnesses Bhavikkumar Vinodbhai Doshi and
Page 17 of 20
Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Thu Jul 17 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 17 21:59:13 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1548/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2025
undefined
Kaushik Ambalal Bhatia had come and had saved him but in the
examination-in-chief he has improved his statement and has brought up
these two eyewitnesses, out of which, Prosecution Witness No. 5 Bhavik
Vinodbhai Doshi has turned hostile. Admittedly in the entire evidence
there is evidence that the place where the incident has occurred is a
public place and it was at the time of the Ganpati festival and there were
a number of people on the road. The witnesses have also stated that a
crowd of people had gathered there but no independent witness have
been examined by the prosecution. The complaint was filed by the
complainant on 20.09.2012 and it was registered under Sections 324, 504
and 427 of the IPC, Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act and Section
3(1)(10) of the Atrocities Act. The offence was registered at 1.30 Hrs. on
21.09.2012. If the complaint produced at Exh.15 is perused, there are no
allegations regarding any caste-slurs used by the accused at the time of
the incident but the offence was registered under the Atrocity Act Section
3 (1)(10). Prosecution Witness No. 12 Udaysingh Amarsingh Rathod
examined at Exh 34 was working as an Unarmed Head Constable and he
was the person who had recorded the complaint of the complainant and
at time of recording the complaint, it did not have any eye-witnesses
merely on any caste slurs used by the accused at the time of the incident
but the case was registered under the Atrocity Act and the investigation
Page 18 of 20
Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Thu Jul 17 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 17 21:59:13 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1548/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2025
undefined
was taken up by this witness. It has also come on record that the
statements of all the witnesses shown in the charge sheet were recorded
by the witness and the panchnama of the place of offence was also drawn
by the same witness. It was only 02.10.2012 that the inviestigation
handed over to the Dy.S.P. (SCST Cell) and it has come on record that
the PW:12 had recorded the statement of the complainant on 21.09.2012,
wherein the allegation that caste-slurs were used against the complaiant
were made but the investigaton was not sent to the Dy.S.P. (SCST Cell)
for the investigation on 02.10.2012.
It was the defense of the accused that he was not present at the
place of incident as he was working in R.P.L. Company and he was on
duly at the time of incident. The accused has examined five witnesses
and it has come on record that on 20.9.2012, the accused was working in
R.P.L. from 14:01 to 22:24 Hrs and he was working in the plant and
thereafter he came and sat in the bus which left the Company for
Rajpipala at about 10:34 pm. The bus reached Rajpipala at 11:30 Hrs.
and it has been proved on record by the documentary and oral evidence
that the accused was in the Company and was working and had reached
Rajpipala only at 11:30 Hrs. The entire evidence of the prosecution and
the accused has been appreciated by the learned trial Court in detail.
Page 19 of 20 Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Thu Jul 17 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 17 21:59:13 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1548/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2025 undefined 11] 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.
12] The impugned judgement and order of acquittal passed by
learned Special Judge, Narmada in Special (Atrocity) Case No. 1 of 2013
on 26.07.2013, is hereby confirmed.
13] Bail bond stands cancelled. Record and proceedings be sent
back to the concerned Trial Court forthwith.
Sd/-
(S. V. PINTO,J)
VVM
Page 20 of 20
Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Thu Jul 17 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 17 21:59:13 IST 2025
[ad_1]
Source link