Back
2026 Supreme(Guj) 478
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK, J.
State Of Gujarat – Appellant
Versus
Babubhai Chanabhai Akbari & Ors. – Respondent
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1605 of 2012
Decided on : 29-06-2026
For the Appellant : MS JIRGA JHAVERI ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
For the Respondent: MR AMIT GHORPADE WITH MR AR THACKER (888)
Appellate courts should not interfere with an acquittal unless the trial court’s findings are perverse. For convictions under caste-protection statutes, evidence must clearly establish that humiliation occurred specifically due to the victim's caste status, rather than as a consequence of personal disputes or other factors.
Headnote:(A) Criminal Procedure Code - Section 378 - Appeal against acquittal - Double presumption of innocence - Scope of Appellate Court interference - Appellate Court must not disturb finding of acquittal unless perversity, manifest illegality, or gross error exists - Mere possibility of another view is insufficient for reversing an order of acquittal. (Paras 24, 25, 27)
(B) Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act - Essential ingredients - Proof of intentional insult or intimidation on the ground of caste status - Establishing that an act targeted the victim specifically due to their identity as a member of a protected community is mandatory - Absence of nexus between the alleged insult and the victim's caste precludes conviction. (Paras 19, 20, 21)
(C) Evidence - Medical reports and eyewitness reliability - Discrepancies between oral claims and medical findings regarding the nature of injuries and circumstances of the incident - Failure to establish identity and unexplained delay in registration of the complaint create reasonable doubt - In absence of independent corroboration, the prosecution case remains unproven. (Paras 11, 12, 13, 18)
Facts of the case:
The prosecution alleged that several individuals intercepted the complainant, subjected him to physical assault, and used offensive language based on his caste. The respondents were charged with various criminal offences and breaches of special legislation. During the trial, all independent witnesses turned hostile, and medical reports failed to support the claim of assault, indicating injuries were consistent with an accidental fall rather than inflicted harm. Additionally, identity discrepancies regarding the complainant were noted.
Findings of Court:
The Court held that the prosecution failed to prove the incident beyond reasonable doubt. The medical evidence nullified the assault claim, and evidence suggested that ongoing disputes over property provided a motive for a retaliatory, false complaint. The Court emphasized that the ingredients for the special legislation were not satisfied as no nexus between the alleged abuse and the complainant's caste was established.
Issues: Whether the Trial Court erred in acquitting the accused, whether the evidence was appreciated correctly, and whether the impugned judgment suffered from legal perversity or manifest error.
Ratio Decidendi: An appellate court must honor the double presumption of innocence reinforced by an acquittal. Where the prosecution fails to establish material links, such as valid identity registration or consistent medical findings, the trial court’s decision to acquit is well-founded. Offence under the special statute requires clear proof that an insult was motivated specifically by the victim's caste, failing which the case must result in acquittal.
Result: Appeal dismissed; judgment of acquittal confirmed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. procedural history and factual record of the criminal case. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 8) |
| 2. contending arguments regarding the appreciation of evidentiary weight at trial. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. evaluation of evidence, inconsistencies in testimony, and prosecution failure. (Para 6 , 7 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 21 , 22 , 23) |
| 4. strict interpretation of 'intent to humiliate' under the sc/st act. (Para 19 , 20) |
| 5. appellate limitations and the double-presumption of innocence in acquittals. (Para 24 , 25 , 26 , 27) |
| 6. final confirmation of acquittal due to lack of credible evidence. (Para 28 , 29 , 30) |
JUDGMENT :
HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK, J.
1. The appellant-State has preferred this appeal under Section 378 (1)(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the judgment and order dated 30.05.2012 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Dhoraji at Rajkot (hereinafter be referred to as “the trial Court”) in Special Atrocity Case No.13 of 2010, whereby the trial Court has acquitted the respondents – accused from the offence punishable under Sections 323, 504, 143, 147 and 148 of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter be referred to as “IPC”), Section 3(1)(10) of Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter be referred to as the “Atrocity Act”) and Section 135 of the G.P. Act.
2. Short facts of the prosecution case are that the complainant, Ukabhai Tejabhai Rathod, an agriculturist, has his land near the Kalka Mataji Temple on the Mojira-Bhankh village road. On 14.01.2010, at around 7:15 P.M., while returning from his farm, he was intercepted by Accused No. 1, Babubhai Chanabhai Patel, who was armed with an iron pipe. Instantly, the other accused persons—Parshotambhai Ambabhai Patel, Mansukh Nanjibhai Patel, Badhabhai Nanjibhai Patel, and Pravin Haribhai Patel—joined him with deadly weapons. Angered by the complainant taking photographs earlier that morning, the accused abused him using filthy language. Accused No. 1 struck the complainant's hand with the iron pipe, and Accused No. 3, Mansukh Nanjibhai Patel, hit him on the head with a dharia. The remaining accused assaulted him with kicks and punches, causing him to lose consciousness. The complainant was taken to the hospital, where his statement was recorded by the A.S.I. of Bhayavadar Police Station, resulting in the registration of C.R. No. 2/2010.
2.1 Following an investigation, a charge-sheet was filed before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Upleta. As the offenses were exclusively triable by a Court of Sessions, the case was committed under Section 209 of the CrPC to the Additional Sessions Judge, Dhoraji, Rajkot, and registered as Special (Atrocity) Case No. 13/2010.
2.2 Charges were framed under Sections 143, 147, 149, 323, and 504 of the Indian Penal Code, Section 3(1)(x) of the Atrocity Act, and Section 135 of the G.P. Act. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution examined 16 witnesses and produced 33 documentary evidences.
2.3 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.
2.4 Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment and order of acquittal the appellant-State has preferred this Appeal.
3. Heard Ms. Jirga Jhaveri, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the appellant – State of Gujarat and Mr. Amit Ghorpade, learned counsel for Mr. A.R. Thacker, learned counsel for the respondents accused at length.
4. Learned APP has submitted that the learned trial Court has failed to appreciate the oral evidence of the 16 witnesses examined and the 33 documentary evidences produced by the prosecution in their true and proper perspective and therefore, the impugned judgment of acquittal is contrary to the weight of evidence on record, bad in law, and has resulted in a grave miscarriage of justice.
4.1 Learned APP has submitted that
