Reserved On : 25/02/2026 Pronounced On : 11/03/2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2194 of 2008 ==========================================================

STATE OF GUJARAT Versus CHAUHAN BHARATSINH KESHRISINH & ORS.

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

Appearance:

MR YUVRAJ BRAHBHATT, APP for the Appellant - State MR MC BAROT(144) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9 MR TEJAS M BAROT(2964) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No.

1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9 UNSERVED EXPIRED (R) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 10 ==========================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SANJEEV J.THAKER

CAV JUDGMENT

1. Feeling aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment and order of acquittal dated 30.04.2008, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge and the Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court No.3, Mehsana, in Special Atrocity Case No. 04/2008 for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 504, 323, 506(2) of the Indian Penal Code, and Section 3(1)(10) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and Section 135 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 Sessions Court, is that the complainant, Jagdishbhai, on 16.06.2007 at about 3:00 p.m., was in the village along with his uncle, Parmar Karshanbhai, where work relating to a large pipes was going on. They were discussing the recovery of rent for a miller machine belonging to his uncle, which had been given on hire. At that time, Janibhai, Harisingh of Navawas Rajpur village, and Pintu Bhano of their village were present there, when his uncle Karshanbhai demanded the rent of Rs.3,000/- for the miller machine. Thereupon, Harisingh stated that such a high rent was not payable for the said machine and that such a machine could be purchased for Rs.10,000. In response, the complainant’s uncle stated that if the machine was available for Rs.10,000, they should purchase it themselves. Being provoked by this exchange of words, on 17.06.2007, the accused persons came in a vehicle along with other family members and abused the complainant and his uncle with reference to their caste and assaulted them by giving fist and kick blows. Therefore, a complaint in this regard was lodged at the police station on 18.06.2007. 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.4 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 9 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 Cour