Back
2026 Supreme(Guj) 295
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK, J.
State Of Gujarat – Appellant
Versus
Sajid Allarakhabhai Shaikh And Ors. – Respondents
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL (AGAINST ACQUITTAL) NO. 1376 of 2014
Decided On : 19-06-2026
For the Appellant : Ms Jirga Jhaveri Additional Public Prosecutor
For the Respondent: Ms. Alka B Vaniya, Nabil O Bloch
In an appeal against acquittal, the appellate court must respect the double presumption of innocence. Interference is only justified if the trial court’s judgment is proven perverse or legally unsustainable. Where evidence is insufficient and two reasonable views are possible, the acquittal must be maintained.
Headnote:(A) Criminal Procedure Code - Section 378 - Appeal against acquittal - Power of Appellate Court - Appellate court possesses authority to review and re-appreciate evidence, but must observe the 'double presumption' of innocence in favor of the accused - Ordinarily, an order of acquittal should not be disturbed unless the finding is perverse, suffers from manifest illegality, or ignores material evidence - Where two reasonable conclusions are possible, the appellate court must not interfere. (Paras 13, 14, 16)
(B) Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 - Section 3(1)(10) - Ingredients of offence - Offence requires proof that abusive words were uttered in a public place within public view with the intent to insult based on community identity - Failure to lead cogent evidence regarding the occurrence in public view renders the charge untenable. (Paras 12, 15)
Facts of the case:
The prosecution alleged that a member of a protected category was subjected to physical assault, verbal abuse, and threats by a group. The trial court acquitted the accused of all charges, leading the state to appeal the decision. During the pendency of the appeal, it was noted that a cross-case involving the participants had resulted in an acquittal, which had been upheld by higher judicial scrutiny, further undermining the credibility of the foundation of the prosecution's claims.
Findings of Court:
The court observed that the prosecution failed to establish the charges beyond a reasonable doubt. Medical testimony suggested the injuries were likely work-related rather than caused by the alleged weapons. Additionally, the essential ingredients for the special statutory offence, specifically the requirement of an occurrence within public view, were entirely unsupported by the evidence.
Issues: Whether the trial court’s acquittal was perverse or contrary to the evidence, and whether the mandatory statutory requirements for the special offenses charged had been satisfied by the prosecution.
Ratio Decidendi: An appellate court is restricted from overturning an acquittal unless the lower court’s conclusion is perverse or demonstrates a fundamental error of law. Given the double presumption of innocence and the absence of cogent evidence connecting the accused to the crime, the trial court's assessment was deemed reasonable and did not warrant interference.
Result: Appeal dismissed; judgment of acquittal confirmed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. procedural history and factual background of the case. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 2. arguments presented by state and respondents. (Para 9 , 10) |
| 3. established principles regarding acquittal and statutory interpretation. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 4. insufficiency of evidence to warrant conviction. (Para 17 , 18) |
| 5. final confirmation of the acquittal order. (Para 19) |
JUDGMENT ;
HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK, J.
1. The appellant-State of Gujarat has preferred this appeal under Section 378(1)(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the judgment and order dated 30.08.2014 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Veraval (hereinafter referred to as “the trail Court”) in Special (Atrocity) Sessions Case no. 11/2013 whereby, the trial Court acquitted the respondents - accused from the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 337, 323, 504, 506(2), 403 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as “IPC”) and Section 135 of the Gujarat Police Act and Section 3(1)(10) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as “Atrocity Act”). During the pendency of the present appeal, respondent no.3-original accused Mr. Dosabhai Rahemanbhai passed away on 12.07.2021 and therefore, the present appeal qua respondent no.3-original accused is abated. Now, the present appeal remains qua respondents no. 1,2,4,5,6,7 only. Original complainant was joined as respondent no. 8 in the present appeal.
2. Short facts of the prosecution case are that the complainant who is belonging to reserve category (Dalit) has lodged a complaint before Police Sub-Inspector, Sutrapada Camp, Government Hospital and stated that he drives truck of Haribhai Zala of Pedhavada and makes his earning. That, on the date of incident, after having meal, he went to pan galla and while he was going there, accused started abusing him and on inquiring why he was abusing him, the accused got angry and Shabbir who was holding a pipe, gave a blow on the right side of the complainant’s head. Thereafter, other accused started kicking and beating him. That, on hearing the shouting of the complainant, Bhavnaben w/o. Badhabhai Mangabhai and Rajesh Bhana came to rescue him and they were also beaten by the accused. That, thereafter, the father of the complainant and other relatives also came there and freed them from further beating. That, at the time of the leaving place, the accused threaten to kill them. That, 108 ambulance was called and initially they were taken to the Government Hospital, Sutrapada, where primary treatment was given to them by the Doctor present there. That, during this fight, Bhavnaben’s earring fell down and was stolen by somebody. That, the cause for this fight was dispute regarding boundary wall on the road at residence of the complainant. That, complaint was lodged and registered as I-C.R. No.36/2013 for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 337, 323, 504, 506(2), 403 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 135 of Gujarat Police Act and Section 3(1) (10) of Atrocity Act. That, charge-sheet was filed before JMFC-Sutrapada against accused and thereafter, committed the said case to the sessions Court as per the provisions of 209 of Criminal Procedure Code.
2.1 The charges against the accused came to be framed by the trial Court vide Exhibit 5 for the aforesaid offences against the accused. On being explained it to them, the accused has denied having committed any offence. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charges and pleaded for trial and hence, the case was tried by the learned Sessions Judge, Veraval.
3. It appears from the records that to prove the case, the prosecution has examined the following witnesses:-
4. In addition to this, the prosecution has also produced the following documentary evidence:
5. After closure of the evidence, the statements of the accused under section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 have been recorded wherein they d
