IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1755 of 2012 ==========================================================

STATE OF GUJARAT Versus CHETANKUMAR NARESHBHAI TARPADA KOLI PATEL & ORS.

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

Appearance:

MS SHRUTI PATHAK, APP for the Appellant(s) No. 1 ABATED for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1 MR RAXIT J DHOLAKIA(3709) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 2,3,4 NOTICE SERVED for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 5 ==========================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SANJEEV J.THAKER Date : 09/03/2026

JUDGMENT

1. Feeling aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment and order of acquittal dated 07.08.2012, passed by the learned Special Judge, Bharuch, Camp at Ankleshwar, in Special (Atrocity) Case No.31 of 2011, for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 504 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 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 04.11.2010 at about 7:00 p.m., on the occasion of Diwali, accused No.1 ignited firecrackers in front of the house of the complainant and threw the same on the terrace of the complainant’s house. Therefore, one neighbour viz., Natubhai, who was living beside the complainant’s house, told the accused not to ignite firecrackers in front of the house and if he wanted to ignite the firecrackers, go away from the house. Therefore, accused No.1 – Chetanbhai got excited and gave filthy abuses and assaulted Natubhai, hence, the complainant rescued said Natubhai from accused No.1, thereafter, accused No.1 went away, but after 15-20 minutes, accused No.1 came back along with other accused persons and quarreled with the complainant and gave filthy abuses relating to her caste and all the accused persons gave kick and punch blows to the complainant and her husband. 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.31 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 10 witnesses and also produced 8 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 h