Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Guj) 8521
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
Sanjeev J. Thaker, J
State Of Gujarat – Appellant
Versus
Chaudhry Kachrabhai Galbabhai – Respondent
R/CR.A/104/2013 | R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 104 of 2013
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Tirthraj Pandya
An appellate court must not interfere with a trial court’s acquittal unless the judgment is shown to be perverse or contrary to material evidence, as the order reinforces the fundamental presumption of innocence and necessitates consistent proof to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code - Sections 504, 506(2), and 114 - Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 - Section 3(1)(10) - Appeal against acquittal - Requirements for proving offence under special legislation - Necessity of proving caste-based intent - Effect of hostile witnesses on evaluation of trial evidence - Appreciating evidentiary contradictions between complaint and testimony. (Paras 4, 8, 8.9)
(B) Appeal - Scope and ambit - Appellate jurisdiction in acquittal cases - Presumption of innocence - Appellate court should not interfere with an acquittal unless the trial court’s order is perverse, contrary to material evidence, or suffers from manifest illegality. (Paras 13, 14, 15, 17)
Facts of the case:
The State filed an appeal against the trial court's judgment acquitting the accused of charges involving criminal intimidation and alleged atrocities against a member of a vulnerable community. The prosecution asserted that a dispute over land encroachment led to the incident. During the trial, material witnesses turned hostile, and significant contradictions emerged between the initial written complaint and the subsequent testimony provided in court.
Findings of Court:
The Appellate Court observed that the prosecution failed to establish the charges beyond reasonable doubt. The trial judge was found to have properly evaluated the evidence, correctly noting the failure of witnesses to support the state's case and highlighting gaps regarding the presence of the accused at the scene and the nature of the verbal exchanges alleged.
Issues: Whether the acquittal order was based on a sound evaluation of evidence and whether valid grounds existed for the appellate court to reverse the lower court's decision.
Ratio Decidendi: An order of acquittal should not be reversed unless the findings are shown to be perverse or demonstrate a complete lack of reasonable basis. Given the double presumption of innocence and the absence of corroborated, reliable evidence—specifically regarding the required intent under special penal legislation—there was no justification to interfere with the trial court's verdict.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of case history, trial proceedings, and initial acquittal. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. appellant's challenge to the trial court's assessment of evidence. (Para 6) |
| 3. procedural status regarding respondent abatement. (Para 7) |
| 4. appellate court assessment of trial court's findings. (Para 9 , 10) |
| 5. principles governing scope of interference in acquittal appeals. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15) |
| 6. application of legal principles to the specific facts. (Para 16 , 17) |
| 7. final order dismissing the appeal. (Para 18) |
CAV JUDGMENT
1. Feeling aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment and order of acquittal dated 10.05.2012, passed by the learned Special Judge (Atrocity) Mahesana, in Special (Atrocity) Case No.26 of 2011, for the offences punishable under Sections 504, 506(2), 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 since the accused encroached some of the portion of Vaghwadi Gram Panchayat, the complainant Kantibhai Keshabhai Vankar filed e-mail complaint to the Hon'ble Chief Minister on 13.1.2011 and keeping grudge over the same on 13.1.2011 when the complainant was going to sleep at his floor factory situate at Vaghwadi village about 07:00 p.m. the accused no.2 stopped him, gave foul abuses and at administered threat and thereafter accused no.1 also came there and tried to beat the complainant and utter filthy word and as such humiliated him. The accused also threatened him that if the complainant would file complaint again against the accused, he would be done to death. 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.26 of 2011. 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 8 witnesses and also produced 9 documentary evidence before the trial Court, which are described in the impugned judgment as under:
Oral Evidence
| Sr.No. | Name of Witness | Exhibit No. |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Deposition of complainant Kantibhai Keshabhai Vankar | 9 |
| 2 | Deposition of Panch Witness Bharatkumar Abherajbhai Chaudhary | 11 |
| 3 | Deposition of Panch Witness Rameshbhai Bhikhabhai Vankar | 13 |
| 4 | Deposition of Panch Witness Ambarambhai Shivrambhai Prajapati | 14 |
| 5 | Deposition of Witness Madhubhai Dalabhai Chaudhary | 15 |
| 6 | Deposition of P.S.O. Bhikhaji Ambaji Chavda | 16 |
| 7 | Deposition of Police Inspector Ranjitsinh Pratapsinh Zala | 18 |
| 8 | Deposition of Talati-Cum-Mantri/ Executive Officer Khimji Saluji Baranda | 20 |
Documentary Evidence
| Sr. No. | Name of Witness | Exhibit |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Depute Order | 8 |
| 2 | Complaint | 10 |
| 3 | Panchnama of the place of offence | 12 |
| 4 | Copy of Station diary | 17 |
| 5 | Report given by registering offence | 19 |
| 6 | Order appointing the officer to investigate the case under the Atrocity Act | 21 |
| 7 | Report regarding making entry in the Station Diary about arrest of the accused | 22 |
| 8 | Caste certificate of the complainant | 23 |
| 9 | Closing pursis filed by the complainant side | 24 |
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 the charge was framed, by holding that the prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt.
6. Learned APP for th
