Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(Guj) 1288

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
S.V. PINTO, J.

State Of Gujarat - Appellant
Versus
Ranjitsinh Prabhatsinh Khant & Ors. – Respondents
R/Criminal Appeal No. 1096 of 2012
Decided On : 02-08-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Ms. Chetna Shah, APP.
For the Respondents: Ms Tanuja N. Kachchhi.

An appellate court cannot overturn an acquittal unless the trial court's reasoning is unreasonable or illegal, maintaining the presumption of innocence unless proved otherwise.

Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 378(1)(3) - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 504, 506(2), and 114 - Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 - Section 3(1)(10) - Appeal against acquittal - Acquittal by the trial court upheld as no error in evaluation of evidence was evident. (Paras 8, 9, 12)

(B) Appeal against acquittal - An appellate court may review the evidence but must not interfere with a reasonable and plausible conclusion by the trial court; presumption of innocence prevails. (Paras 8, 9)

Facts of the case:
The trial court acquitted the accused of charges under IPC and the Atrocities Act based on insufficient evidence supporting the complainant's claims, including no independent witnesses and contradictions in witness statements. The complainant alleged verbal and physical abuse stemming from a dispute over credit for goods, while the prosecution witnesses did not support the case. (Paras 3.1, 11)

Findings of Court:
The trial court's acquittal was based on the thorough evaluation of evidence, with significant contradictions noted among witnesses and insufficient proof of the complainant's claimed status under the Atrocities Act. (Paras 11, 12)

Issues: The court examined whether the acquittal by the trial court was justified based on the evaluation of the prosecution's evidence and the application of the presumption of innocence. (Paras 9, 12)

Ratio Decidendi: The appellate court reaffirmed that while it has the power to reappreciate evidence, it must respect the trial court's findings if reasonable; the acquittal is upheld due to lack of compelling evidence. (Paras 9, 12)

Result: Appeal dismissed; the acquittal order confirmed.

JUDGMENT :

S.V. PINTO, J.

1] This appeal has been 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 learned Special Judge & 4^th Additional Sessions Judge, Kheda (hereinafter referred to as "the learned Trial Court") in Special (ATRO) Case No. 67 of 2010 on 09.04.2012 whereby, the learned Trial Court has acquitted the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 for the offence for the offence punishable under Sections 504 , 506(2) and 114 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE , 1860 (IPC) and Sections 3 (1)(10) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities ) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as the Atrocities Act)

2] When the matter is called out, learned APP submits a report of Virpur Police Station, Unarmed Head Constable V. N. Chauhan of Virpur Police Station, District Mahisagar stating that the respondent No.2 Prabhatsinh Motisinh Khant has expired in 2013 and submits a copy of the certificate of Talati-cum-Mantri, Pasroda Gram Panchayat, Taluka Virpur, District Mahisagar stating that the respondent No. 2 has expired in the year 2013. In view of the same, the appeal qua respondent No. 2 has become infructuous and is disposed of accordingly.

2.1] The respondents are hereinafter referred to as “the accused” as they stood in the rank and file in the original case for the sake of convenience, clarity and brevity.

3] The brief facts that emerge from the record of the case are as under:

3.1] On 19-10-2009, at about 15:00 hours, the complainant - Lebabhai Kadabhai Vankar was sitting at his shop at Javrakhant Na Movada, Tabe Jodhpur, Taluka: Virpur and the accused No. 1 had consumed liquor and came to the shop and threw the basket of onions and potatoes from the shop of the complainant. When the complainant asked him why he had thrown the basket of the vegetables, the accused No. 1 started abusing the complainant and took a stone in his hand to assault the complainant. A struggle ensued during which, the wrist watch on the left hand of the complainant broke. The complainant started shouting and the witnesses came and intervened and the accused No. 2, who was the father of the accused No. 1 came to the house of the complainant with stick and abused the complainant. Both the accused hurled caste-slurs against the complainant and the complainant filed a complaint at the Virpur Police Station under Sections 504 , 506 (2)and 114 of the IPC and Section 3 (1) (10) of the Atrocity Act and Section 135 of the BP Act which came to be registered at Virpur Police Station II- C.R.No.81 of 2009.

3.2] The Investigating Officer recorded the statements of the connected witnesses and collected the necessary documents and after completion of investigation the police filed the charge-sheet against the accused before the Court of the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Balasinor and as the said offences against the accused were exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the case was committed to the Sessions Court, Kheda as per the provisions of Section 209 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the case was registered Special (ATRO) Case No. 67 of 2010.

3.3] 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 statements of the accused were recorded at Exh. 5 and Exh.6 respectively, wherein, the accused denied all the contents of the charge and the entire evidence of the prosecution was taken on record.

3.4] The prosecution produced ten oral and four documentary evidences to bring home the charge against the accused and after the learned Additional Public Prosecutor filed the closing pursis, the further statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 were recorded, wherein, the accused