Back
2026 Supreme(Guj) 861
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SANJEEV J.THAKER, J.
Solanki Bharatbhai Melabhai – Appellant
Versus
State Of Gujarat & Anr. – Respondent
CRIMINAL APPEAL (AGAINST ACQUITTAL) NO. 192 of 2025
Decided on : 24-04-2026
For the Appellant : BHISHMA A. RAWAL(12270)
For the Respondent: PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
An appellate court must not interfere with an acquittal unless the lower court's decision is perverse or ignores material evidence. A conviction requires proof beyond reasonable doubt, and where prosecution testimony is contradictory, lacks corroboration, and fails to establish essential statutory elements, acquittal is warranted.
Headnote:(A) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 378 - Appeal against acquittal - Appellate court has full power to review and reappreciate evidence, but should not interfere with an order of acquittal unless the decision is perverse, ignores material evidence, or fails to accord due weight to the trial court's assessment of witness credibility - Double presumption of innocence exists in favor of the accused - If two reasonable conclusions are possible, the appellate court should not disturb the acquittal. (Paras 11, 13, 15)
(B) Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 - Section 3(1)(x) - Insult or intimidation towards a member of a vulnerable community - Offence not proved unless it is established that the act was committed specifically because the victim belongs to that community - Every act of insult does not satisfy the ingredients of the statute. (Para 8.15)
Facts of the case:
The case originated from a dispute at a passenger vehicle terminal regarding the order of arrival. The complainant alleged that the respondent used caste-based slurs and physically assaulted him following a disagreement over vehicle positioning. The trial court acquitted the respondent, finding that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The appellant challenged this acquittal before the appellate court.
Findings of Court:
The medical evidence was found to be subjective and inconclusive, providing no firm support for the alleged assault. Material witnesses, including panch witnesses and an alleged eyewitness, turned hostile and failed to support the case. Furthermore, the investigating authorities admitted that no specific caste-based remarks were mentioned in the complaint or recorded during the investigation. The trial court’s findings were deemed based on a plausible evaluation of the evidence.
Issues: The main issues were whether the trial court failed to appreciate the evidence properly and whether the prosecution successfully established the guilt of the accused for the alleged offences, including those under the special legislation.
Ratio Decidendi: The appellate court ruled that the prosecution failed to establish the offences beyond reasonable doubt. The evidence was marred by contradictions, hospital records did not corroborate the severity of the alleged assault, and core allegations of caste-based abuse lacked independent witness testimony. Following settled principles of criminal jurisprudence, the court declined to disturb the trial court's plausible finding of acquittal.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. procedural history and factual foundation of the prosecution's case. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. opposing contentions regarding the validity of the trial court's acquittal. (Para 6 , 7) |
| 3. failure of the prosecution to prove charges due to lack of evidence. (Para 8) |
| 4. evaluating evidentiary consistency and the trial court's findings. (Para 9 , 10) |
| 5. principles for appellate interference in trial court acquittals. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 6. final confirmation of acquittal and dismissal of the appeal. (Para 17 , 18) |
JUDGMENT :
SANJEEV J.THAKER, J.
1. Feeling aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment and order of acquittal dated 20.06.2024, passed by the learned Special Judge and 4th Additional Sessions Court, Visnagar, in Special Atrocity Case No.2 of 2019, for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 504, 506(1) of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3(1)(R)(S), 3(2)(5-A) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act, the appellant has preferred this appeal under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, “the Code”).
2. The case of the appellant unfolded during the trial before the lower Court, is that the Appellant meets his daily life expenses by driving a cab car bearing registration number GJ-02-W-144, ferrying passengers between Kheralu and Visnagar. On 22.01.2019 around 06:15 PM while waiting for the passengers the appellant drove his car in the line at the taxi stand where the accused-respondent No. 2 drove his car in front of the appellant’s car. When the appellant requested the accused that the passengers should board in the appellant’s car first at the taxi stand as the appellant was in line, the accused became furious and started abusing and quarrelling with the appellant. The accused-respondent No. 2 started hitting the appellant in the abdomen and chest. The accused-respondent No. 2 knew that the appellant belongs to the Scheduled Caste, the accused-respondent No. 2 made a remark that “you are supposed to clean the streets and not to drive the car” and also uttered casteist slurs against the appellant’s caste and abused the appellant verbally and physically, therefore, the complaint was filed against the respondent/s-accused.
3. After investigation, sufficient prima facie evidence was found against the accused person/s and therefore charge-sheet was filed in the competent criminal Court for the offences as alleged. Since the offence alleged against the accused person/s was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the learned Magistrate committed the case to the Sessions Court, where it came to be registered as Special (Atrocity) Case No.2 of 2019. The charge was framed against the accused person/s. The accused pleaded not guilty and came to be tried.
4. In order to bring home the charge, the prosecution has examined 13 witnesses and also produced 14 documentary evidence before the Trial Court, which are described in the impugned judgment as under:
Oral Evidence
| No. | Witness / Person Providing Testimony | Exhibit |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Testimony of Doctor Himaben Babubhai Patel | 07 |
| 2 | Testimony of Doctor Bhargav Alkeshkumar Patel | 10 |
| 3 | Testimony of Panch Witness (Dineshbhai Bhakhabhai Bhangi) regarding the Panchnama of the scene of the offence | 14 |
| 4 | Testimony of Second Panch Witness (Khalid Riyaz Mohammad Arab) regarding the Panchnama of the scene of the offence | 16 |
| 5 | Testimony of Panch Witness (Jitubhai Kantibhai Patel) regarding the Panchnama of the physical condition of the accused | 17 |
| 6 | Testimony of Second Panch Witness (Arvindgiri Devgiri Bawa) regarding the Panchnama of the physical condition of the accused | 19 |
| 7 | Testimony of Witness, Ushaben Bharatbhai Solanki | 21 |
| 8 | Testimony of Witness, Nagarji Sonaji Thakor | 22 |
| 9 | Testimony of Complainant, Bharatbhai Melabhai Solanki | 23 |
| 10 | Testimony of P.I. (Police Inspector), Sunilbhai Virsinghbhai Chaudhary | 25 |
| 11 | Testimony of Police Witness, Kamleshbhai Nagarjibhai Rabari | 30 |
| 12 | Testimony of D.C.P., Bhaktiba Ketanbh | |
