IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1096 of 2010 FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SANJEEV J.THAKER ==========================================================

Approved for Reporting Yes No ==========================================================

STATE OF GUJARAT Versus NARESHKUMAR DASHRATHLAL RANA & ORS.

==========================================================

Appearance:

MS MEGHA CHITALIYA, APP for the Appellant(s) No. 1 DR. HARDIK K RAVAL(6366) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 4 MR MOHDDANISH M BAREJIA(10612) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s)

No. 1,2,3 ==========================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SANJEEV J.THAKER Date : 10/02/2026

ORAL JUDGMENT

1. Feeling aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment and order of acquittal dated 11.03.2010 passed by the learned Special Judge, (Atrocity) and Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural), Ahmedabad, in Special (Atrocity) Case No.119 of 2001 for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 403, 504 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3(1)(10) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, the appellant – State of Gujarat has preferred this appeal under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, “the Code”).

2. The prosecution case, as unfolded during the trial before the trial Court, is that the complainant filed the complaint to the effect that on 06.02.1998 at about 15:00 hours, he was going in his jeep from Radhanpuri Vas to Ahmedabad, at that time, as one handcart was lying in between, the complainant asked him to take the handcart to the side, but the said person, who was plying the handcart, his younger brother and other persons started talking aggressively and also started abusing and hitting the complainant, therefore, the people gathered and came to rescue the complainant. 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.119 of 2001. 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 10 witnesses and also produced 6 documentary evidence before the trial Court, which are described in the impugned judgment.

5. After hearing both the parties and after analysis of evidence adduced by the prosecution, the learned trial Judge acquitted the accused for the offences for which they were charged, by holding that the prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt.

6. Learned APP for the appellant – State has pointed out the facts of the case and having taken this Court through both, oral and documentary evidence, recorded before the learned trial Court, would submit that the learned trial Court has failed to appreciate the evidence in true sense and perspective; and that the trial Court has committed error in acquitting the accused. It is submitted that the learned trial Court ought not to have given much emphasis to the contradictions and/or omissions appearing in the evidence and ought to have given weightage to the dots that connect the accused with the offence in question. It is submitted that the learned trial Court has erroneously come to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove its case. It is also submitted that the learned Judge ought to have seen that the evidence produced on record is reliable and believable and it was proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused had committed an offence in question. It is, therefore, submitted that t