State Of Gujarat vs Chhotalal Siyaram Kshatriya & Ors

Sanjeev J.Thaker, J

Feeling aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment and order of acquittal dated 30.07.2010, passed by the learned Special Judge (Atrocity), Court No.18, Ahmedabad City, in Special (Atrocity) Case No.30 of 2009, for the offences punishable under Sections 324, 294(b) and 114 of the Indian Penal Code, Sections 3(1)(10) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and Section 135(1) of the Bombay Police Act, the appellant – State of Gujarat has preferred this appeal under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, “the Code”).

The prosecution case, as unfolded during the trial before the lower Court, is that on 25.08.2008 at about 6:30 p.m., when the complainant – Girishbhai Laljibhai Makwana and his cousin brother viz., Arvindbhai were sitting in the compound of Vivekanand Mill, at that time, the wife of complainant viz., Hansaben called the complainant and informed that Chintu, son of Chhotalal Painter has thrown water pouch on the wife of the complainant and also gave filthy abuses. Therefore, the complainant and his cousin brother went to their Chawl. At that time, the accused persons came from the opposite side and gave filthy abuses. When the complainant told them not to give abuses, the accused persons got angry and accused No.2 – Chintu inflicted knife blows on complainant’s left leg, by giving filthy abuses, by uttering obscene words in public and intentionally caused hurt to him. Thereafter, on hearing the shout, people were gathered from the locality and rescued him from the accused persons, therefore, the accused persons ran away from there. Therefore, the complaint was filed against the respondent/s-accused.

After investigation, sufficient prima facie evidence was found against the accused person/s and therefore charge-sheet was filed in the competent criminal Court for the offences as alleged. Since the offence alleged against the accused person/s was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the learned Magistrate committed the case to the Sessions Court where it came to be registered as Special (Atrocity) Case No.30 of 2009. The charge was framed against the accused person/s. The accused pleaded not guilty and came to be tried.

In order to bring home the charge, the prosecution has examined 10 witnesses and also produced 7 documentary evidence before the trial Court, which are described in the impugned judgment.

After hearing both the parties and after analysis of evidence adduced by the prosecution, the learned trial Judge acquitted the accused for the offences for which they were charged, by holding that the prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt.

Learned APP for the appellant – State has pointed out the facts of the case and having taken this Court through both, oral and documentary evidence, recorded before the learned trial Court, would submit that the learned trial Court has failed to appreciate the evidence in true sense and perspective; and that the trial Court has committed error in acquitting the accused. It is submitted that the learned trial Court ought not to have given much emphasis to the contradictions and/or omissions appearing in the evidence and ought to have given weightage to the dots that connect the accused with the offence in question. It is submitted that the learned trial Court has erroneously come to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove its case. It is also submitted that the learned Judge ought to have seen that the evidence produced on record is reliable and believable and it was proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused had committed an offence in question. It is, therefore, submitted that this Court may allow this appeal by appreciating the evidence led before the learned trial Court.

As against that, learned advocate for the respondent/s would support the impugned judgment passed by the learned trial Court and has submitted that the learned trial Court has not committed any error in acquitting the accused. The trial Court has taken possible view as the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, it is prayed to dismiss the present appeal by confirming the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned trial Court.

In the aforesaid background, considering the oral as well as documentary evidence on record, independently and dispassionately and considering the impugned judgment and order of the trial Court, the following aspects weighed with the Court :

8.1 The prosecution has examined the complainant – Girishbhai Laljibhai Makwana as P.W.1, vide Exh.9. Though the complaint has been given by the complainant, the same has been narrated by the aunt and at the time when the aunt was giving details in the said complaint, the complainant was unconscious and after he gained consciousness, he has signed the said complaint. The fact remains that the said aunt, who has given details in the complaint, has not been examined by the prosecution. The complainant has also not stated that said aunt – Kamlaben had seen the alleged incident. Moreover, when the knife which is alleged to have been used in the offence, was shown to the complainant, he has stated that it is not the same knife from which injuries were inflicted; and that the said knife was a different knife.

8.2 The panch witness – Amarji Dhruvnarayan Shukla has been examined as P.W.3, vide Exh.12. He has not supported the case of the prosecution. He has stated that he has only signed the panchnama produced vide Exh.26.

The panch of the place of offence has also not supported the case of the prosecution and has only stated that he has signed the said report as he is an illiterate and whatever was written in the panchnama was not read over to him. The said panch viz., Vinubhai Dalabhai Parmar has been examined as P.W.2, vide Exh.11.

If the complaint produced vide Exh.10 is taken into consideration, the said complaint also does not state that what kind of abuses were given by the accused to the complainant and the same has been improved upon while giving deposition before the Court.

8.3 If the deposition of the PSI – Vijaysinh Bharatsinh Rajput, who has been examined as P.W.4, vide Exh.13, is taken into consideration, he, in his deposition, has also stated that at the time when the complaint was taken, the complainant has not stated as to what abuses were made by the accused on the caste of the complainant.

The complainant’s wife - Hansaben Girishbhai Makwana, who have been examined as P.W.7, vide Exh.20, has stated that there were two or three boys, who were drunk and the said fact was not stated while filing the complaint before the PSI, who has been examined vide P.W.4.

Moreover, the complainant has stated that after he was inflicted with the knife injury, he became unconscious, whereas the wife of the complainant stated that the complainant regained consciousness after two to three hours after they reached the hospital. However, as per the doctor’s certificate, it does not transpire that the complainant was unconscious. The fact as per the evidence of the doctor – Dr.Mittalbhai Bhaskarbhai Dave, who has been examined as P.W.5, vide Exh.15, is that on 25.08.2008 at around 8:00 p.m., the patient had reached the hospital. If the certificate of the doctor is taken into consideration, the patient was not unconscious when he reached at the hospital. The said doctor, who has been examined as P.W.5, has also stated that as per his opinion, looking to the muddamal knife, it could be possible that the injury could not be sustained by the said knife and the injury could be if the complainant is hurt by a sharp iron sheet/plate.

8.4 There are lot of contradictions as to the time of offence. The complainant, in his complaint, has stated that only the accused - Chintu i.e. accused No.2 had abused the complainant of his caste and as per the deposition of the wife of the complainant – P.W.7, she has stated that all the accused had abused the complainant of his caste.

The fact remains that the complainant himself states that the knife which is shown to him from the muddamal item is not the knife by which he was assaulted.

The panch witnesses have also not supported the case of the prosecution. The panch witnesses of recovery of knife, vide Exh.12, stated that the panchnama was already prepared, he only signed it, but he does not know the content of it. Therefore, the recovery panchnama has not been proved.

8.5 Hansaben Girishbhai Makwana – P.W.7, in her deposition, has also stated that she does not recognize the knife and she has only stated that she has seen the knife in the hands of accused No.2 and she only saw her husband fallen down and there were injuries on the legs.

8.6 Therefore, the prosecution has not proved the case against the accused for the offence as alleged. Moreover, as per the observations made by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sajan Sakhariya Vs. State of Kerala and others reported in AIR 2024 SC 4557, every insult or intimidation would not amount to an offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, unless such insult or intimidation is started at a victim because he is a member of a particular Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes. Therefore, from the allegations made in the complaint, the prosecution has not proved that the accused is guilty of an offence under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

8.7 Vide Exh.9, the complainant examined himself as a prosecution witness. In his examination, he has stated that when accused stabbed him, he got unconscious and he got treated fort two days in hospital. There are contradictions in the complaint vide Ehx.10 and testimony of the complainant vide Exh.9. In his testimony, he stated that his aunt lodged the complaint when he was not conscious. When he became conscious, the complaint was read over to him and he signed it. However, the prosecution has failed to examine the aunt of the complainant, nor is the complainant saying that his aunt has seen the incident with her own eyes.

8.8 The complainant’s cousin – Arvindbhai Somabhai Waghela was examined as P.W.9, vide Exh.22. He stated that during the quarrel, he only saw that blows were exchanged, he did not see anything else. He stated that Girishbhai got injured on his log during the quarrel, but he does not know that what exactly struck him. After the quarrel, he went home. Thus, his testimony does not establish that accused - Chintoo caused injury to the complainant with a knife.

8.9 The trial Court, while considering the evidences in detail, has observed that the prosecution has failed to prove the case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. While discussing the evidence in detail, the trial court has found that the only allegation against the accused is of speaking indecent words against the caste of the complainant. The trial Court has gone into the evidence in detail and has come to the conclusion that the accused are not guilty of the alleged offence.

Further, learned APP is not in a position to show any evidence to take a contrary view in the matter or that the approach of the Court below is vitiated by some manifest illegality or that the decision is perverse or that the Court below has ignored the material evidence on record. In above view of the matter, this Court is of the considered opinion that the Court below was completely justified in passing impugned judgment and order.

Considering the impugned judgment, the trial Court has recorded that there was no direct evidence connecting the accused with the incident and there are contradictions in the depositions of the prosecution witnesses. In absence of the direct evidence, it cannot be proved that the accused are involved in the offence. Further, the motive of the accused behind the incident is not established. The trial Court has rightly considered all the evidence on record and passed the impugned judgment. The trial Court has rightly evaluated the facts and the evidence on record.

It is also a settled legal position that in acquittal appeal, the appellate court is not required to re-write the judgment or to give fresh reasoning, when the reasons assigned by the Court below are found to be just and proper. Such principle is down by the Apex Court in the case of State of Karnataka Vs. Hemareddy, reported in AIR 1981 SC 1417 wherein it is held as under:

“… This court has observed in Girija Nandini Devi V. Bigendra Nandini Chaudhary (1967)1 SCR 93: (AIR 1967 SC 1124) that it is not the duty of the appellate court when it agrees with the view of the trial court on the evidence to repeat the narration of the evidence or to reiterate the reasons given by the trial court expression of general agreement with the reasons given by the Court the decision of which is under appeal, will ordinarily suffice.”

Thus, in case the appellate court agrees with the reasons and the opinion given by the lower court, then the discussion of evidence at length is not necessary.

In the case of Ram Kumar v. State of Haryana, reported in AIR 1995 SC 280, Supreme Court has held as under:

“The powers of the High Court in an appeal from order of acquittal to reassess the evidence and reach its own conclusions under Sections 378 and 379, Cr.P.C. are as extensive as in any appeal against the order of conviction. But as a rule of prudence, it is desirable that the High Court should give proper weight and consideration to the view of the Trial Court with regard to the credibility of the witness, the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused, the right of the accused to the benefit of any doubt and the slowness of appellate Court in justifying a finding of fact arrived at by a Judge who had the advantage of seeing the witness. It is settled law that if the main grounds on which the lower Court has based its order acquitting the accused are reasonable and plausible, and the same cannot entirely and effectively be dislodged or demolished, the High Court should not disturb the order of acquittal."

As observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajesh Singh & Others vs. State of Uttar Pradesh reported in (2011) 11 SCC 444 and in the case of Bhaiyamiyan Alias Jardar Khan and Another vs. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in (2011) 6 SCC 394, while dealing with the judgment of acquittal, unless reasoning by the trial Court is found to be perverse, the acquittal cannot be upset. It is further observed that High Court's interference in such appeal in somewhat circumscribed and if the view taken by the trial Court is possible on the evidence, the High Court should stay its hands and not interfere in the matter in the belief that if it had been the trial Court, it might have taken a different view.

In the case of Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka, reported in (2007) 4 SCC 415, the Hon’ble Apex Court has observed as under:

“42. From the above decisions, in our considered view, the following general principles regarding powers of the 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 Criminal Procedure Code, 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 against acquittal. Such phraseologies are more in the nature of “flourishes of language” to emphasise 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 is 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.”

The Hon’ble Apex Court, in a recent decision, in the case of Constable 907 Surendra Singh and Another V/s State of Uttarakhand reported in (2025) 5 SCC 433, has held in paragraph 24 as under:

“24. It could thus be seen that it is a settled legal position that the interference with the finding of acquittal recorded by the learned trial Judge would be warranted by the High Court only if the judgment of acquittal suffers from patent perversity; that the same is based on a misreading/omission to consider material evidence on record; and that no two reasonable views are possible and only the view consistent with the guilt of the accused is possible from the evidence available on record.”

Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court while considering the scope of appeal under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 no case is made out to interfere with the impugned judgment and order of acquittal.

In view of above facts and circumstances of the case, on my careful re-appreciation of the entire evidence, I found that there is no infirmity or irregularity in the findings of fact recorded by learned trial Court and under the circumstances, the learned trial Court has rightly acquitted the respondent/s - accused for the elaborate reasons stated in the impugned judgment and I also endorse the view/finding of the learned trial Court leading to the acquittal.

In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, the present Criminal Appeal fails to prove its case and the same deserves to be dismissed and is dismissed, accordingly. Record & Proceedings be remitted to the concerned trial Court forthwith.