IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1338 of 2010 FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

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

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

STATE OF GUJARAT Versus HIRABHAI DEVABHAI RABARI & ORS.

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

Appearance:

MR YUVRAJ BRAHMBHATT, APP for the Appellant(s) No. 1 MR HB CHAMPAVAT(6149) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3 MR MAHESH P PATEL(3381) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3 NOTICE SERVED for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 4 ==========================================================

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 16.03.2010 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Deesa - Camp Court Diyodar, in Special (Atrocity) Case No.69 of 2009 for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 504 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 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 on 22.04.2009, when the sons of the complainant went for labour work, she was alone in her house and at that time, at about 07:30 p.m., the accused came there and asked by shouting as to where her sons have gone, to which, the complainant told him not to shout and that what is the work with her sons, to which the accused abused her and when the complainant stopped him from abusing her, the accused got provoked and inflicted fist blow on her; and that Ashokbhai Lavjibhai Turi and Somabhai came there and intervened and pursuant to that, he inflicted hockey blow on his right hand knee and upon hearing the shouts, the accused Nos.2 and 3 came there by holding washing paddle (‘dhoka’) in their hands and abused the complainant and witnesses against their caste. Therefore, a 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.69 of 2009. 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 11 witnesses and also produced 12 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 prosecutio