Reserved On : 06/03/2026 Pronounced On : 17/03/2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 753 of 2012 ==========================================================

STATE OF GUJARAT Versus RANUBHAI DHUDABHAI MENIYA & ORS.

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

Appearance:

MS MEGHA CHITALIYA, APP for the Appellant(s) No. 1 MR KIRTIDEV R DAVE(3267) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3,4 MR PV PATADIYA(5924) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 5 ==========================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SANJEEV J.THAKER

CAV JUDGMENT

1. Feeling aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment and order of acquittal dated 17.03.2012 passed by the learned Special Judge, Surendranagar, Camp at Limbdi, in Special (Atrocity) Case No.44 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 lower Court, is that on the fateful night of 15.04.2008, the respondents – accused armed with deadly weapons like hand sickle (‘Dhariya’), scythe sickle (‘Farsi’), etc., reached at the place of the complainant, keeping grudge about the fact that the complainant and others have submitted complaints against the accused persons and made an assault upon the complainant and other witnesses and caused them severe injuries and also abused them in public and also threatened them to kill them. 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.44 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 15 witnesses and also produced 5 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 and learned advocate for the original complainant have 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