Back
2025 Supreme(Guj) 1616
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
S.V. PINTO, J.
State Of Gujarat - Appellant
Versus
Patel Rameshbhai Manilal & Anr. – Respondents
R/Criminal Appeal (Against Acquittal) No. 911 of 2015
Decided On : 23-06-2025
For the Appellant : Ms. Dhwani Tripathi, APP.
In acquittal appeals, the prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and minor contradictions do not suffice to overturn a justified acquittal.
Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 378(1)(3) - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 323, 325, 114 - Gujarat Police Act - Section 135 - Appeal against acquittal - Acquittal upheld due to prosecution's failure to prove charges beyond reasonable doubt - Evidence presented was not conclusive, with minor contradictions affecting credibility of claims. (Paras 1-12)
(B) Criminal Jurisprudence - Presumption of innocence - This court affirms that in acquittal appeals, the onus is on the prosecution to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and merely presenting a different view is not sufficient for overturning an acquittal. (Paras 6-7)
Facts of the case:
The appellant, State of Gujarat, challenged the acquittal of the accused for assaulting the complainant using blunt weapons. Witness testimonies supported the case, but contradictions were present regarding the nature of injuries and the events leading up to the incident.
Findings of Court:
The Court found that the trial court did not err in acquitting the accused, as reasonable doubt remained in the prosecution’s case.
Issues: The key issue focused on whether the evidence presented sufficiently established the accused's guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that an appellate court must respect the acquittal unless there are compelling reasons to disturb it, reiterating the presumption of innocence and the need for substantial evidence.
Result: Appeal dismissed; the acquittal stands confirmed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. background of the case and incident details. (Para 1 , 2) |
JUDGMENT :
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 the learned Sessions Judge, Mahesana (hereinafter referred to as "the learned Trial Court") in Sessions Case No. 73 of 2013 on 20.04.2015, whereby, the learned Trial Court has acquitted the respondents for the offence punishable under Sections 323 , 325 and 114 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE , 1860 (IPC) as well as Section 135 of the GUJARAT POLICE ACT (hereinafter referred to as “the G.P.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 18-11-2012, at around 16.30 hours, the complainant Vihabhai Ramdas Vandas was in his agricultural land and was putting water in the water line of the machine placed in this agricultural land and at that time, the accused came and told him not to put water in the pipeline and to take his machine from there. The accused No. 1 one got agitated and hit the stick, which was in his hand on the face of the complainant and one teeth of the complainant broke.The accused No. 2 took the sword, which was in his hand and hit it on the wrist of the left hand of the complainant and abused the complainant and asked him to leave the place. The complainant took his tractor and went home and he was taken to Civil Hospital, Bechraji for treatment where he filed the complaint under Sections 325 , 323 and 114 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE , 1860 and Section 135 of the GUJARAT POLICE ACT , which was registered as Bechraji Police Station I-C.R.No. 98 of 2012.
2.2] The Investigating Officer recorded the statements of the connected witnesses and collected the necessary documents and after completion of investigation the police filed the chargesheet against the accused before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bechraji and as the said offences against the accused was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the case was committed to the Sessions Judge, Mehsana as per the provisions of Section 209 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the case was registered Sessions Case No. 73 of 2013.
2.3] The prosecution filed the following oral evidence as well as documentary evidences to bring home the charge against the accused.
ORAL EVIDENCE
| Sr. No | Prosecution Witness No. | Name of the Prosecution Witness |
| 1 | 11 | Dr. Chandrakant Kailashpuri Goswami |
| 2 | 16 | Amratbhai Chaturbhai Patel |
| 3 | 22 | Visabhai Ramdas Patel |
| 4 | 24 | Nathhubhai Ranchhodbhai Patel |
DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES
| Sr. No | Exhs | Particulars |
| 1 | 12 | Recovery Certificate of Complainant |
| 2 | 19 | Arrest Panchnama |
| 3 | 20 | Depute Order |
| 4 | 22 | Panchnama of place of offence |
| 5 | 23 | Complaint |
| 6 | 27 | Offence Report |
| 7 | 28 | Arrest Report |
| 8 | 29 | Copy of notification |
2.4] That after the entire evidence of the prosecution was taken on record, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor filed the closing pursis at Exh; 30 and the further statement of the accused were recorded wherein both the accused denied all the evidence and stated that a false case has been filed against him.
3] Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said judgement and order of acquittal, the appellant - State has filed the present appeal mainly stating that the impugned judgement and order of acquittal passed by the learned Trial Court is contrary to law and evidence on record and the learned Trial Court has not appreciated the fact that all the witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution and during cross-examination, nothing adverse has been elicited in favour of the respondents. The case has been proved beyond reasonable doubts and the prosecution has successfully established the case against the respondents and the judgement and order of acquittal is unwarranted, illegal and without any basis in the eyes of law and the rea
