Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(Guj) 1329

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
S.V. PINTO, J.
State Of Gujarat - Appellant
Versus
Kanubhai Dadabhai Baraiya & Ors. - Respondents
R/Criminal Appeal No. 118 of 2011
Decided on : 23-07-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : MR. PRANAV DHAGAT, App
For the Respondent: MR HARSHAD K PATEL

Appellate courts may not overturn acquittals unless the trial court's conclusions are unreasonable; presumption of innocence remains paramount.

Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 378 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 323, 324, 504 and 114 - Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 - Section 3(1)(10) - Appeal against acquittal - Appellate powers to review evidence - Acquittal held justified based on lack of evidence supporting prosecution's case. (Paras 6 and 10)

(B) Legal principles - Presumption of innocence - Appellate courts should not interfere with acquittal unless the trial court's view is unreasonable or perverse - The appellate court can review and reach its conclusion. (Paras 6 and 7)

Facts of the case:
An acquittal resulted from a case where the complainant and his uncle were allegedly assaulted by the respondents, but crucial witnesses did not support the prosecution's claims, revealing inconsistencies due to the crowd during the incident. (Paras 2.1-2.3)

Findings of Court:
The trial court found that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt, thus upholding the presumption of innocence. (Paras 10)

Issues: The court addressed whether the trial court's acquittal was legally sound and if the evidence supported the prosecution's claims. (Paras 3 and 10)

Ratio Decidendi: The court affirmed that in acquittal appeals, the presumption of innocence must be maintained, and a trial court's reasonable conclusion must not be disturbed without substantial reasons. (Paras 6 and 7)

Result: Appeal dismissed.

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 judgment and order of acquittal passed by learned Special Judge & Presiding Judge, Fast Track Court No. 1, Amreli, Camp Rajula (hereinafter referred to as "the learned Trial Court") in Special (Atrocity) Case No. 47 of 2009 on 25.10.2010, whereby, the learned trial Court has acquitted the respondents for the offence punishable under Sections 323, 324, 504 and 114 of INDIAN PENAL CODE , 1860 (hereafter referred to as "IPC" for short) and Sections 3(1) (10) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as “Atrocities Act”).

1.1 The respondents are hereinafter referred to as the accused in the rank and file as they 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 15-12-2008, at around 8 p.m., the complainant - Bhanajibhai Malabhai Sarvaiya had gone along with his uncle Rameshbhai Kalabhai Sarvaiya to the shop of the accused No. 1 to drink soda and at that time, the accused No. 1 told him to take the carcass of the dog and throw it away. The complainant stated that he was not doing such type of work and the accused No. 1 got angry and abused the complainant and hurled caste-slurs. The accused No. 2 came and pulled the uncle of the complainant in the lane and started assaulting him. The complainant followed and at that time, the accused No. 2 took a knife from his pant and the accused No. 1 came with an Axe and assaulted the complainant and his uncle. The accused Nos. 3 and 4 too came with an iron pipes and assaulted both of them and the complainant was injured on his finger. The complainant and his uncle Rameshbhai Kalabhai Sarvaiya were taken to the government hospital at Una and the complainant filed the complaint at the Nageshri Police Station under Sections 323, 324, 504 and 114 of the IPC and Section 3 (1)(10) of the Atrocity Act which came to be registered at Nageshri Police Station I- C.R.No.40 of 2008.

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 Judicial Magistrate First Class, Rajula and as the said offences against the accused was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the case was committed to the Sessions Court, Amreli as per the provisions of Section 209 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and case was registered Special (Atrocities) Case No. 47 of 2009.

2.3 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. 8 was framed against the accused and the statements of the accused were recorded at Exhs. 7 to 10, 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 fourteen oral evidences and fifteen documentary evidences to bring home charge against the accused and after the learned Additional Public Prosecutor filed the closing pursis at Exh. 42, 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 Additional Public Prosecutor and the learned advocate for the accused were heard, the learned trial Court by the impugned judgment and order was pleased to acquit all the accused from all the charges leveled against them.

3. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said judgement and or