Back
2025 Supreme(Guj) 1277
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
S.V. PINTO, J.
State Of Gujarat - Appellant
Versus
Bharatbhai Tribhovandas Patel & Anr. – Respondents
R/Criminal Appeal No. 1464 of 2012
Decided On : 02-08-2025
For the Appellant : Mr Pranav Dhagat, APP.
For the Respondents: Mr. Kuldip K. Acharya.
In appeals against acquittal, modifications are permitted only in cases of manifest illegality and substantial reasons, maintaining the presumption of innocence.
Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 378(1)(3); Indian Penal Code - Sections 504, 506(2) and 509; Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 - Section 3(1)(x) - Appeal against acquittal - State appeals against judgment acquitting accused of criminal charges including intimidation and caste-based insults - Trial Court found evidence insufficient beyond reasonable doubt - Court emphasizes presumption of innocence and limited grounds for overturning acquittals. (Paras 1-9)
Facts of the case:
The complainant, a nurse, alleged that the accused verbally harassed her and used caste slurs at the public pick-up stand. The FIR was lodged a day later, citing intimidation and insults as per the IPC and Atrocities Act. (Paras 2.1-2.2)
Findings of Court:
The evidence presented by the prosecution was not convincing enough to prove the accusations against the accused; the Trial Court was justified in its acquittal. (Paras 9)
Issues: The key issues included the adequacy of the evidence, the timeline of the complaint registration, and the implications of the presumption of innocence. (Paras 6)
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the acquittal should remain unless there is a clear manifest illegality or inconsistency that the Trial Court could not reasonably arrive at, reinforcing the principle that doubts benefit the accused. (Paras 6)
Result: Appeal dismissed; the judgment of acquittal was confirmed.
JUDGMENT :
1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant State under Section 378(1)(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') against the judgment and the order passed by the learned Special Judge / 5th Additional District Judge and Sessions Judge, District Banakantha @ Palanpur (hereinafter referred to as 'the learned Trial Court') in Special (Atrocity) Case No.1 of 2011 on 30.05.2012, whereby, the learned Trial Court has acquitted the respondent accused from the offences punishable under Sections 504 , 506(2) and 509 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE (hereinafter referred to as 'the IPC') and under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled 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 rank and file in the original case, for the sake of convenience, clarity and brevity.
2. The relevant facts leading to filing of the present appeal are as under:
2.1. The complainant, Dakshaben, daughter of Veerabai Talshibai Parmar, was working as a nurse in Ambaliyad village and was commuting from Palanpur to Ambaliyad. On 25-10-2010 at around 10 a.m., while she was at Malan Gates in Palanpur, the accused came and asked her to surrender to him, he would make her leave her job, abused her, threatened to kill her and used bad language and made some gestures intending to insult her modesty. The accused also hurled caste slurs against her, and the complainant, Dakshaben, daughter of Veerabai Talshibai Parmar, filed a complaint at the Palanpur City Police Station under Sections 504 , 509, 506(2) of the IPC and Section 3(1)(X) of the Atrocity Act, which came to be registered at Palanpur City Police Station, II-C.R.No.382 of 2010.
2.2. After registration of the FIR, the investigation was carried out by the concerned Investigating Officer and after having sufficient material against the accused, a chargesheet came to be filed before the concerned jurisdictional Magistrate. As the case was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, after completion of the process under Section 209 of the Cr.P.C., the case was committed to the Sessions Court and the same was registered as Special (Atrocity) Case No.1 of 2011.
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 was framed by the learned Trial Court at Exh.5 and the statement of the accused was recorded at Exh.6, wherein, the accused denied all the contents of the charge and the entire evidence of the prosecution was taken on record. The prosecution examined 06 witnesses and produced 07 documentary evidences in support of the case.
2.4. After the closing pursis was submitted by the learned APP, the further statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Code was recorded. After hearing the arguments of the learned APP and learned advocate for the accused and after perusing the documents on record, the learned Trial Court, by the impugned judgment and order, acquitted the accused.
3. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Trial Court, the appellant - State has filed the present appeal mainly stating that the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Trial Court is contrary to law, evidence on record and principles of justice. The learned Trial Court has not considered the direct or indirect evidence produced in this case connecting the accused with the crime and has also not appreciated the oral as well as documentary evidence on record and has straightway arrived at the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubts. The learned Trial Court has erred in considering minor omissions and contradictions in the evidence of the prose
