Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
S.V. PINTO, J.
State of Gujarat - Appellant
Versus
Manishbhai @ Nimeshbhai Bhagwanbhai Chaudhary and Another - Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 673 of 2012
Decided On : 27-02-2025
(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 378(1)(3) - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 323 and 504 - Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 - Section 3(1)(10) - Appeal against acquittal - The learned Trial Court acquitted the accused for the offences under IPC and Atrocities Act, finding that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. The evidence presented was insufficient, with key witnesses turning hostile and no independent corroboration of the complainant's claims. (Paras 1, 10, 11)
(B) Acquittal Appeals - The appellate court has the power to review and reappreciate evidence but must respect the presumption of innocence and the trial court's reasonable conclusions. An acquittal should not be disturbed unless the trial court's view is unreasonable or perverse. (Paras 7, 8)
Facts of the case:
The complainant alleged that the accused assaulted him and used caste-based slurs at a tea stall. The accused denied the allegations, and the prosecution's witnesses largely did not support the case.
Findings of Court:
The learned Trial Court found no evidence to substantiate the complainant's claims and acquitted the accused.
Issues: The main issues were whether the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and the validity of the trial court's acquittal.
Ratio Decidendi: The court upheld the trial court's decision, emphasizing the importance of evidence and the presumption of innocence in acquittal cases.
Result: The appeal is dismissed, and the acquittal is confirmed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. incident at tea stall (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. state's appeal arguments (Para 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 3. defense's arguments (Para 6) |
| 4. scope of acquittal appeals (Para 7) |
| 5. court's reasoning on acquittal (Para 8) |
| 6. appeal dismissed (Para 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 7. judgment confirmed (Para 12 , 13) |
JUDGMENT :
1. The present present appeal is filed by the appellant State under Section 378(1)(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the judgement and order of acquittal passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Deesa (hereinafter referred to as “the learned Trial Court”) in Special Case No. 33/2010 on 26.12.2011, whereby, the learned Trial Court has acquitted the respondent for the offence punishable under Sections 323 and 504 of IPC and Sections 3(1)(10) of Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as “the Atrocities 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 On 27.09.2009, the complainant - Amrutbhai Sendhabhai Valmiki was sitting at the tea stall of Rambhai Kotak along with Prakashbhai Amthabhai Valmiki, Babubhai Dharmabhai, Valmiki and his wife Kamlaben to drink tea and at that time, the accused Manishbhai Patel who has a Reliance Gas Agency in Jani shopping Centre came and asked him why he had filed an application against him and hurled caste abuses and threw him down from the place where he was sitting. As he started hitting him, his wife and two other persons including the hotel owner - Rambhai intervened and sent Manishbhai away. The complainant filed the complaint at Dhanera Police Station which was registered at II – C.R. No. 3001/2009 under Sections 323 and 504 of the IPC and Section 3(1)(10) Atrocities Act.
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 learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Shihor and as the said offences against the accused were exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the case was committed to the Sessions Court, Banaskantha at Deesa as per the provisions of Section 209 of Code of Criminal Procedure and the case was registered as Special Case No. 33/2010.
2.3 The accused was 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 and a charge at Exh. 5 was framed against the accused and the statement of the accused was recorded at Exh. 6 wherein, the accused denied the contents of the charge and the entire evidence of the prosecution was taken on record.
2.4 The prosecution produced the following evidence to bring home the charge against the accused.
ORAL EVIDENCE
| S. No. | PW | Name of the witness | Exh. |
| 1 | 1 | Amrutbhai Sendhabhai | 8 |
| 2 | 2 | Vasrabhai Dhudabhai Kapdi | 10 |
| 3 | 3 | Kamlaben w/o Amrutbhai | 12 |
| 4 | 4 | Rambhai Khilumal Sindhi | 13 |
| 5 | 5 | Prakashbhai Amthabhai Parmar | 14 |
| 6 | 6 | Nareshbhai Popatbhai Valmiki | 16 |
| 7 | 7 | Jagdishkumar Chaturji | 17 |
| 8 | 8 | Mahendrasinh Ratansinh Rathod | 22 |
DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE
| S. No. | Particulars | Exh. |
| 1 | Complaint | 9 |
| 2 | Panchnama | 11 |
| 3 | Panchnama | 15 |
| 4 | Report | 18 |
| 5 | Investigation | 19 |
| 6 | Special Report | 20 |
| 7 | Caste Certificate | 23 |
| 8 | Order | 24 |
2.5 After the learned APP filed the closingpursis at Exh. 25, 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 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 APP and the learned advocate for the accused were heard, the learned Trial Court by the impugned judgement and order was pleased to acquit the accused from
In acquittal appeals, the appellate court must respect the presumption of innocence and only interfere if the trial court's conclusions are unreasonable or perverse.
The appellate court must respect the presumption of innocence and the trial court's findings unless they are perverse or illegal, reaffirming the high burden of proof required in criminal cases.
An appellate court must respect the presumption of innocence and should not interfere with an acquittal unless there is manifest illegality or perversity in the trial court's judgment.
The appellate court must respect the presumption of innocence and not overturn acquittals unless the trial court's conclusions are unreasonable or unsupported by evidence.
The appellate court must respect the presumption of innocence and not interfere with an acquittal unless the trial court's decision is unreasonable or perverse.
The appellate court must respect the presumption of innocence and not overturn acquittals unless the trial court's conclusions are unreasonable or unsupported by evidence.
The appellate court upheld the acquittal, emphasizing the presumption of innocence and the necessity for the prosecution to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
The appellate court may review evidence in acquittal appeals but should not reverse a trial court's acquittal unless the trial court's decision is unreasonable or perverse.
The appellate court affirmed the trial court's acquittal, emphasizing the necessity of substantial evidence for conviction and the presumption of innocence for the accused.
An appellate court has broad powers to review evidence in acquittal appeals but should exercise caution, respecting the presumption of innocence unless the trial court's conclusions are unreasonable.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
