Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Guj) 857

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SANJEEV J.THAKER, J.
Solanki Bharatbhai Melabhai – Appellant
Versus
State Of Gujarat & Anr. – Respondent
CRIMINAL APPEAL (AGAINST ACQUITTAL) NO. 192 of 2025
Decided on : 24-04-2026

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : BHISHMA A. RAWAL(12270)
For the Respondent: PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

In an appeal against acquittal, the appellate court will not interfere with a trial court's decision unless it is perverse, illegal, or ignores material evidence. When the prosecution fails to establish guilt through credible, corroborated evidence, the double presumption of innocence in favour of the accused remains paramount.

Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 378 - Appeal against acquittal - Appellate court has full power to review and reappreciate evidence, but should not interfere with an order of acquittal unless the reasoning of the lower court is perverse, illegal, or ignores material evidence - Trial court’s view, if a possible one on the evidence, should not be disturbed. (Paras 13, 14, 15)

(B) Social Safeguard Legislation - Offences concerning humiliation - Every instance of insult or intimidation does not constitute an offence unless specifically directed towards a victim due to their membership in a specific group - Prosecution must prove occurrence beyond reasonable doubt. (Para 8.15)

(C) Evidence - Credibility of witnesses - Where panch witnesses turn hostile and medical evidence is subjective or inconclusive, conviction cannot be sustained - Prosecution must corroborate its case with consistent material evidence. (Paras 8.2, 8.3, 8.6, 8.13)

Facts of the case:
The complainant alleged that an altercation regarding a vehicle parking queue escalated, resulting in physical assault and the use of derogatory slurs by the respondent. The prosecution alleged offences of causing hurt, criminal intimidation, and violations of specific social safeguard laws. The trial court acquitted the respondent, finding that the prosecution case was not established beyond reasonable doubt.

Findings of Court:
The lower court properly evaluated the evidence, noting that all independent witnesses turned hostile and medical reports did not definitively correlate the claimed injuries with the alleged incident. The court found no evidence of actionable slurs and concluded that the allegations were not substantiated.

Issues: Whether the trial court’s order of acquittal was based on an appreciation of facts that was perverse or legally flawed and whether the evidence warranted a reversal of the judgment.

Ratio Decidendi: In an appeal against acquittal, the appellate court must respect the double presumption of innocence. Where the trial court’s findings are reasonable and backed by evidence, the appellate court should not interfere simply because another view is possible.

Result: Appeal dismissed.

Table of Content
1. factual overview of the incident and judicial history prior to appeal. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5)
2. summary of rival contentions regarding the trial court's acquittal. (Para 6 , 7)
3. re-appreciation of evidence and validation of trial court findings. (Para 8 , 9 , 10)
4. scope of appellate interference in acquittal judgements. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15)
5. final confirmation of acquittal and dismissal of appeal. (Para 16 , 17 , 18)

JUDGMENT :

SANJEEV J.THAKER

1. Feeling aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment and order of acquittal dated 20.06.2024, passed by the learned Special Judge and 4th Additional Sessions Court, Visnagar, in Special Atrocity Case No.2 of 2019, for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 504, 506(1) of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3(1)(R)(S), 3(2)(5-A) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act, the appellant has preferred this appeal under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, “the Code”).

2. The case of the appellant unfolded during the trial before the lower Court, is that the Appellant meets his daily life expenses by driving a cab car bearing registration number GJ-02-W-144, ferrying passengers between Kheralu and Visnagar. On 22.01.2019 around 06:15 PM while waiting for the passengers the appellant drove his car in the line at the taxi stand where the accused-respondent No. 2 drove his car in front of the appellant’s car. When the appellant requested the accused that the passengers should board in the appellant’s car first at the taxi stand as the appellant was in line, the accused became furious and started abusing and quarrelling with the appellant. The accused-respondent No. 2 started hitting the appellant in the abdomen and chest. The accused-respondent No. 2 knew that the appellant belongs to the Scheduled Caste, the accused-respondent No. 2 made a remark that “you are supposed to clean the streets and not to drive the car” and also uttered casteist slurs against the appellant’s caste and abused the appellant verbally and physically, 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.2 of 2019. 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 13 witnesses and also produced 14 documentary evidence before the Trial Court, which are described in the impugned judgment as under:

Oral Evidence

No.	Witness / Person Providing Testimony	Exhibit
1	Testimony of Doctor Himaben Babubhai Patel	07
2	Testimony of Doctor Bhargav Alkeshkumar Patel	10
3	Testimony of Panch Witness (Dineshbhai Bhakhabhai Bhangi) regarding the Panchnama of the scene of the offence	14
4	Testimony of Second Panch Witness (Khalid Riyaz Mohammad Arab) regarding the Panchnama of the scene of the offence	16
5	Testimony of Panch Witness (Jitubhai Kantibhai Patel) regarding the Panchnama of the physical condition of the accused	17
6	Testimony of Second Panch Witness (Arvindgiri Devgiri Bawa) regarding the Panchnama of the physical condition of the accused	19
7	Testimony of Witness, Ushaben Bharatbhai Solanki	21
8	Testimony of Witness, Nagarji Sonaji Thakor	22
9	Testimony of Complainant, Bharatbhai Melabhai Solanki	23
10	Testimony of P.I. (Police Inspector), Sunilbhai Virsangbhai Chaudhary	25
11	Testimony of Police Witness, Kamleshbhai Nagarjibhai Rabari	30
12	Testimony of D.C.P., Bhaktiba Ketanbhai Thaker	35
13	Testimony of Police Superintendent, Jayendrasinh Rajendrasinh Vaghela	37

Documentary Ev

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Guj) 857

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABADSANJEEV J.THAKER, J.Solanki Bharatbhai Melabhai – Appellant VersusState Of Gujarat & Anr. – Respondent CRIMINAL APPEAL (AGAINST ACQUITTAL) NO. 192 of 2025Decided on : 24-04-2026

Cases Referred (6)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SANJEEV J.THAKER, J.
Solanki Bharatbhai Melabhai – Appellant
Versus
State Of Gujarat & Anr. – Respondent
CRIMINAL APPEAL (AGAINST ACQUITTAL) NO. 192 of 2025
Decided on : 24-04-2026