Back
2026 Supreme(Guj) 477
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK, J.
State Of Gujarat – Appellant
Versus
Ratilal Govindbhai Kapadiya And Ors. – Respondents
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1095 of 2012
Decided On : 25-06-2026
For the Appellant : Ms Jirga Jhaveri Additional Public Prosecutor
For the Respondent: Mr Ruturaj Nanavati
An appellate court should not reverse an acquittal unless the trial court's finding is perverse, as the accused benefits from a double presumption of innocence. For Section 3(1)(10) of the Atrocity Act, insults must occur in public view to attract liability.
Headnote:The appeal was filed under Section 378(1)(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, challenging the acquittal of the accused for offences under Sections 143, 147, 149, 427, 504, and 506(2) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(1)(10) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The prosecution alleged that the accused formed an unlawful assembly, damaged crops by grazing cattle, and used caste-based insults in public. The trial court acquitted the accused due to lack of credible evidence. The court framed issues regarding the justification of the acquittal and the appreciation of evidence. The ratio decidendi established that for an offence under Section 3(1)(10) of the Atrocity Act, it must be proven that abusive words were uttered in a public place within public view with the intent to insult based on community. Furthermore, the court emphasized the 'double presumption' of innocence in appeals against acquittal, stating that such orders should not be disturbed unless the trial court's conclusion is perverse or suffers from manifest illegality. Resultantly, it is dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. background of the appeal and prosecution case facts. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 2. arguments regarding evidence appreciation and trial court errors. (Para 9 , 10) |
| 3. analysis of evidence contradictions and 'public view' requirement. (Para 11 , 12) |
| 4. legal standards for interfering with acquittal orders. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 5. confirmation of acquittal due to lack of evidence. (Para 17 , 18 , 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 13.04.2012 passed by the learned Special Judge, 7th Additional Sessions and Additional District Court, Junagadh (hereinafter be referred to as “the trial Court”) in Atrocity Sessions Case No. 35 of 2010, whereby the trial Court has acquitted the original accused (respondents herein) from the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 149, 427, 504 and 506(2) of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as “IPC”) and under Section 3(1)(10) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
2. Short facts of the prosecution case are that on the day of incident, the respondents-accused, after making an unlawful assembly with an intention to achieve their common objection, went to the field of the complainant, where they left their animals, as a result of which, the crops of the complainant were damaged. That, thereafter, when the complainant made inquiry about it, the respondents-accused got excited, abused him in general public and threatened to kill him. Hence, offence came to be registered with Visavadar Police Station for the aforesaid offences. On completion of investigation, charge sheet was submitted into the Court of learned J.M.F.C., Visavadar.
2.1 The charge against the accused came to be framed by the trial Court vide Exhibit 13 for the aforesaid offences against the accused. On being explained it to them, the accused have denied having committed any offence. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and pleaded for trial and hence, the case was tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Junagadh.
3. It appears from the records that to prove the case, the prosecution has examined the following witnesses:-
| P.W. No. | Name of Witnesses | Exhibit |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Ravjibhai Punabhai Boricha | 24 |
| 2 | Sureshbhai Arjanbhai Dafada | 28 |
| 3 | Jentibhai Girdharbhai Limbani | 29 |
| 4 | Jaysukhbhai Samjubhai Rangani | 32 |
| 5 | Bachubhai Jivajibhai Ninama | 34 |
| 6 | Jitendrabhai Savjibhai Patel | 36 |
4. In addition to this, the prosecution has also produced the following documentary evidence.
| Sr. No. | Particulars | Exhibit |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Caste certificate of complainant | 25 |
| 2 | Complaint given by the complainant | 26 |
| 3 | Panchnama of scene of offence | 30 |
| 4 | Arrest panchnama | 33 |
| 5 | List submitted by PSO to the Deputy Superintendent of Police for investigation of the said crime | 37 |
| 6 | Fax message sent to Deputy Superintendent of Police | 38 |
| 7 | Report for serious offences | 39 |
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 denied of having committed any offence and have stated that they are innocent.
6. After hearing both sides and considering the evidence on records, the trial Court by impugned judgment and order has acquitted the accused from all the charges levelled against them.
7. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment and order of acquittal the appellant – State of Gujarat has preferred this appeal.
8. Heard Ms.Jirga Jhaveri, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the appellant – State of Gujarat and Mr. Ruturaj Nanavati, learned counsel for the respondents – accused at length. Though notice served, respondent no. 8-original complainant has chosen not to remain present before this Court.
9. Ms. Jhaveri, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the appellant – State of Gujarat has submitted the same facts which are narrated in the memo of appeal and has also submitted
