Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(Guj) 1224

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
S.V. PINTO, J.
State Of Gujarat - Appellant
Versus
Manubhai Panchanbhai Makwana & Anr. - Respondents
R/Criminal Appeal No. 1841 of 2012
Decided on : 05-08-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : MR. PRANAV DHAGAT, APP
For the Respondent: MR VL THAKKAR, MR. HARDIK C THAKKAR, MR. NIRAV V THAKKAR

In acquittal appeals, the appellate court must respect the presumption of innocence, not overturning a trial court's reasonable judgment based on lack of evidence and contradictions.

Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 378 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 323, 504, 506(2), 114 - Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 - Section 3(1)(10) - Bombay Police Act - Section 135 - Appeal against acquittal for violence and caste-based offense - Trial court acquitted the accused due to lack of independent witnesses and contradictions in evidence. (Paras 1, 10)

(B) Acquittal of accused - Legal standards for appellate scrutiny in acquittal appeals include presumption of innocence and the court's reluctance to overturn reasonable conclusions reached by the trial court. (Paras 7, 8)

Facts of the case:
Allegation of physical assault on a minor by the accused during a quarrel at school, accompanied by claims of caste-based slurs. The trial court found insufficient evidence to support the charges.

Findings of Court:
The court concluded that the trial court appropriately acquitted the accused based on significant inconsistencies in witness testimonies and a lack of supporting evidence.

Issues: The core issues included whether the trial court's judgment was justified and if the prosecution had sufficiently proven the case beyond a reasonable doubt.

Ratio Decidendi: The appellate court upheld that the trial court's findings were reasonable given the evidence, affirming the importance of presumption of innocence for the accused.

Result: Appeal dismissed, trial court's acquittal confirmed.

Table of Content
1. summary of case background and procedural history. (Para 1 , 2)
2. arguments presented by both parties. (Para 3 , 5 , 6)
3. court's analysis and observations on evidence. (Para 4 , 7 , 8 , 10)
4. principle regarding the standard of review in acquittal appeals. (Para 9)
5. conclusion and confirmation of acquittal. (Para 11 , 12)

JUDGMENT :

S.V. PINTO, J.

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, Limbdi (hereinafter referred to as "the learned Trial Court") in Special (Atrocity) Case No. 07 of 2012 (Old Case No. 40 of 2009) on 30.08.2012, whereby, the learned Trial Court has acquitted the respondent for the offence punishable under Sections 323 , 504, 506(2) and 114 of INDIAN PENAL CODE , 1860 (hereafter referred to as "IPC" for short), Sections 3(1)(10) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as “Atrocities Act”) and Section 135 of the BOMBAY 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 On 31-12-2008, Mahesh the son of the complainant Jagdishbhai Bachubhai Chauhan was in the school and the other son Vipul came and told the complainant that two boys were quarreling with Mahesh. The complainant immediately went to school and found that the accused and his two sons Bhimo and Kirti were quarreling with his son Mahesh. The accused took a stick and hit one blow on the right hand and one blow on the back of Mahesh. At that time, the complainant Jagdish Bachubhai Chauhan asked the accused why was he interfering when the children were quarreling and the accused hurled caste-slurs against him. The complainant took his son to the Government Jospital at Sayla and thereafter to the Mahatma Gandhi Hospital and filed the complaint at the Panshina Police Station under Sections 323 , 504 and 506(2) of the INDIAN PENAL CODE , Section 135 of the BOMBAY POLICE ACT , and Section 3 (1) (10) Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as “the Atrocity Act”), which came tobe registered as Panshina Police Station II-C.R.No. 3001 of 2009.

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 Chief Judicial Magistrate First Class, Limbdi and as the said offence against the accused was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the case was committed to the Additional Sessions Court, Limbdi as per the provisions of Section 209 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and case was registered Special (Atrocity) Case No. 07 of 2012 (Old Case No. 40 of 2009).

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. A charge at Exh. 7 was framed against the accused and the statements of the accused was recorded at Exh.8, 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 ten oral evidences and five documentary evidences to bring home charge against the accused and after the learned Additional Public Prosecutor filed the closing pursis at Exh. 36, the further statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 were recorded, wherein, the accused denied all the evidence of the prosecution on record. The accused refused to step into the witness box but stated that he wanted to examine defense witness. After the arguments of the learned A