IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2151 of 2010 FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

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

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

STATE OF GUJARAT Versus CHHOTALAL SIYARAM KSHATRIYA & ORS.

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

Appearance:

MR YUVRAJ BRAHBHATT, APP for the Appellant - State MR NISHITH P THAKKAR(2836) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No.

1,2,3 RULE SERVED for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 3 UNSERVED EXPIRED (N) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 4 ==========================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SANJEEV J.THAKER Date : 06/02/2026

ORAL JUDGMENT

1. Feeling aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment and order of acquittal dated 30.07.2010, passed by the learned Special Judge (Atrocity), Court No.18, Ahmedabad City, in Special (Atrocity) Case No.30 of 2009, for the offences punishable under Sections 324, 294(b) and 114 of the Indian Penal Code, Sections 3(1)(10) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and Section 135(1) of the Bombay Police 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 lower Court, is that on 25.08.2008 at about 6:30 p.m., when the complainant – Girishbhai Laljibhai Makwana and his cousin brother viz., Arvindbhai were sitting in the compound of Vivekanand Mill, at that time, the wife of complainant viz., Hansaben called the complainant and informed that Chintu, son of Chhotalal Painter has thrown water pouch on the wife of the complainant and also gave filthy abuses. Therefore, the complainant and his cousin brother went to their Chawl. At that time, the accused persons came from the opposite side and gave filthy abuses. When the complainant told them not to give abuses, the accused persons got angry and accused No.2 – Chintu inflicted knife blows on complainant’s left leg, by giving filthy abuses, by uttering obscene words in public and intentionally caused hurt to him. Thereafter, on hearing the shout, people were gathered from the locality and rescued him from the accused persons, therefore, the accused persons ran away from there. 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.30 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 10 witnesses and also produced 7 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 appea