Back
2026 Supreme(Guj) 435
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
Hemant M. Prachchhak, J.
State Of Gujarat – Appellant
Versus
Lohana Naranbhai @ Najubhai Lalchandbhai & Anr. – Respondents
R/Criminal Appeal No. 464 of 2012
Decided On : 23-06-2026
For the Appellant : Ms Jirga Jhaveri, Addl. Public Prosecutor
For the Respondent: Mr P K Shukla, Mr. Maulin Barot
In an appeal against acquittal, the appellate court should not interfere unless the trial court’s findings are perverse or ignore material facts. An acquittal reinforces the presumption of innocence; therefore, the prosecution must prove all elements of the alleged offenses beyond reasonable doubt to justify a reversal.
Headnote:(A) Criminal Procedure Code (1973) - Sections 313 and 378(1)(3) - Indian Penal Code - Sections 332, 504 and 506(2) - Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (1989) - Section 3(1)(10) - Criminal appeal against acquittal - Scope of interference - An appellate court must bear in mind that in case of acquittal, there is a double presumption in favour of the accused. Firstly, the presumption of innocence, and secondly, that the acquittal has reinforced such innocence. (Paras 12 and 15)
(B) Principles of Acquittal - If two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the appellate court should not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial court. An order is not to be interfered with simply because another view is possible. (Paras 13 and 21)
(C) Evidence - Requirement of proof - For establishing the commission of specific social group protection offenses, the prosecution must lead prima facie satisfactory, cogent, and material evidence to prove that insults were uttered in a public place within public view with specific intent to insult, which was lacking in the present case. (Para 11)
Facts of the case:
The prosecution alleged that after an earlier dispute regarding rent collection between the complainant and the respondent, a second incident occurred on a subsequent date involving an assault and the use of offensive abusive words. The prosecution examined several witnesses; however, their testimonies were contradictory, particularly regarding the presence of certain witnesses at the scene. The investigation was also criticized for failing to record statements from independent witnesses present in the vicinity.
Findings of Court:
The Court held that there were material contradictions in the testimony of the witnesses and that the prosecution had failed to establish a prima facie case. The trial court provided cogent and sufficient reasons for the acquittal, and there was no evidence of illegality or perversity in that judgment.
Issues: The main issues were whether the trial court correctly appreciated the evidence on record, whether there was any perversity in the order of acquittal, and whether the evidence was sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt.
Ratio Decidendi: Since there is no credible evidence to connect the respondent to the alleged crime and the prosecution’s version was riddled with contradictions, the benefit of doubt must remain with the accused. An appellate court should only interfere if the lower court's reasoning is perverse or ignores material evidence.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. procedural history and the factual background of the criminal appeal. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. summary of rival contentions between the appellant state and respondents. (Para 7 , 8) |
| 3. evaluation of prosecution evidence and witness credibility. (Para 9 , 10 , 16 , 17) |
| 4. appellate standards and interpretation of the atrocity act. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15) |
| 5. final dismissal of the appeal and confirmation of acquittal. (Para 18) |
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 02.02.2012 passed by the learned Special Judge, Patan (hereinafter be referred to as “the trial Court”) in Special (Atrocity) Case No.5 of 2010, whereby the trial Court has acquitted the original accused (respondent No.1 herein) from the offences punishable under Sections 332, 504 and 506(2) etc of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(1)(10) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter be referred to as “the Atrocity Act”).
2. Short facts of the prosecution case are that, the complainant viz., Jagdishbhai Tribhovandas Makwana was discharging his duty with the Siddhpura Nagarpalika, who was entrusted with the work of collecting the rents of the shops and houses and, therefore on 21.08.2009, he approached the respondent-accused for collecting the amount of rent, however, altercation took place between them and, thereafter, the compromise was arrived at between them. However, keeping grudge about the said incident, on the day of incident i.e. on 15.09.2009, the respondent-accused caught hold the complainant and assaulted him and also abused him in public place and, thereafter, threatened to kill him and thereby, the respondent-accused has committed alleged offences. Accordingly, offence came to be registered with Siddhapur Police Station for the offences under Sections 332, 504 and 506 (2) of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 3(1)(10) of the Atrocity Act on 15.09.2009.
2.2 On the basis of complaint, the investigation was embarked upon. On conclusion of the investigation, on the basis of the material collected against the respondent-accused, since the Investigating Officer found a prima-facie case against the respondents-accused, chargesheet came to be filed before the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Siddhapur for the offences under Sections 332, 504 and 506 (2) of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 3(1)(10) of the Atrocity Act on 30.10.2009. Since the case registered against the respondent-accused was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the earned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Siddhpur after making inquiry about the suppliance of copies of papers, free of cost to the accused as provided under Section 208 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and upon satisfaction that the accused have engaged their own Advocate for defence, committed the case to the Court of Session Judge, Patan under Section 209 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which came to be registered as Special (Atrocity) Case No.5 of 2010. On committal, the case was transferred and placed for trial before the learned Special Judge, Patan, who had initially framed charge for the alleged offences vide Exh.9 on 16.07.2011. The charge was read over and explained vide Exh.10. The statement of the respondent-accused came to be recorded, wherein the respondent-accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed to be tried.
2.3 In order to bring home the charge leveled against the accused, the prosecution has examined as many as 6 witnesses and relied upon their oral testimony, i.e. Prosecution Witness No.1 viz., Makvana Jagdishkumar Tribhovandas at Exh.11, Prosecution Witness No.2 viz., Mukeshkumar Babulal at Exh.14, Prosecution Witness No.3 viz., Dharmendrakumar Niranjanbhai Ghori at Exh.15, Prosecution Witness No.4 viz., Jagdishbhai Dalabhai Vaghel
