Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Guj) 8734
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
Sanjeev J. Thaker, J
State of Gujarat – Appellant
Versus
Thakore Savsiji Kamaji – Respondent
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1326 of 2009
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SHRUTI PATHAK
For the Respondents: MANAN S DOSHI, ANKIT M MODI, SHYAM R CHAKWAWALA, RM CHAKWAWALA, KISHAN R CHAKWAWALA, DEEPAK N KHANCHANDANI
An appellate court will not interfere with an acquittal order unless the trial court’s reasoning is perverse, illegal, or ignores material evidence. If the trial court's view is reasonable, the double presumption of innocence protects the accused, and appellate interference is unwarranted.
Headnote:(A) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 378 - Appeal against acquittal - Appellate court has full power to review, reappreciate and reconsider evidence - However, in case of acquittal, there is a double presumption of innocence in favour of the accused - If two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of evidence on record, the appellate court should not disturb the finding of acquittal - Interference is warranted only if the judgment suffers from patent perversity or if the trial court has ignored material evidence - It is not for the appellate court to substitute its view simply because another view is possible. (Paras 11, 13, 14, 15, 16)
(B) Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 - Section 3(1)(x) - Offences related to intentional insult or intimidation - Not every insult or intimidation amounts to an offence under the Act, unless such indignity is directed at a victim specifically because they are a member of a targeted protected community. (Para 8.8)
Facts of the case:
The state filed an appeal against an order of acquittal passed by the trial court in a criminal case involving allegations of physical assault and caste-based insults. The prosecution case relied on a complaint regarding a dispute over contract work, but several witnesses turned hostile during trial, and documentary evidence showed significant contradictions. The trial court concluded that the prosecution had failed to establish the charges beyond reasonable doubt.
Findings of Court:
The appellate court found that the trial court’s judgment was based on a proper appreciation of the evidence. It noted the absence of direct evidence linking the accused to the incident and observed that the prosecution failed to prove that the alleged insults were specifically motivated by the victim's social background, which is a necessary ingredient for the charged offense. The appellate court concluded that no manifest illegality existed to warrant interference.
Issues: Whether the trial court’s order of acquittal was perverse, illegal, or ignored material evidence, and whether the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt to justify interference by the appellate court.
Ratio Decidendi: An appellate court will not disturb an order of acquittal unless the reasoning of the trial court is found to be perverse or illegal. When the trial court's view is reasonable, the double presumption of innocence in favour of the accused remains paramount, and the appellate court should refrain from substituting its own judgment for that of the trial court.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. case history, trial facts, and procedural background. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. appellate arguments regarding evaluation of evidence and reasoning. (Para 6 , 7) |
| 3. evidence insufficiency and failure of prosecution to prove guilt. (Para 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 4. restricted appellate powers in overturning trial court acquittals. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 5. final confirmation of acquittal based on trial court analysis. (Para 17 , 18 , 19) |
1. Feeling aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment and order of acquittal dated 15.04.2009, passed by the learned Special Judge, Fast Track Court, Patan in Special Atrocity Case No.48 of 2008, for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 504, 506(2) and 114 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(1)(x) 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 Sessions Court, is that the complainant Raghubhai Manjibhai Parmar, a labourer working for Bhagabhai Punjabhai in collecting money for sand excavation from the Banas River, was threatened by accused Thakor Savsiji and Kamaji on 12.05.2008 for working under Bhagabhai. Later the same evening, near Dhadhana village, the accused again stopped him, abused him with caste-based insults, and assaulted him with pipe blows, kicks, fists, and sticks. On his shout, Bhagabhai arrived, and the accused fled after issuing further threats. 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.48 of 2008. 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 12 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 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 this Court may allow this appeal by appreciating the evidence led before the learned trial Court.
7. As against that, learned advocate for the respondent/s would support the impugned judgment passed by the learned trial Court and has submitted that the learned trial Court has not committed any error in acquitting the accu
