IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1975 of 2010 ==========================================================

STATE OF GUJARAT Versus USHABEN MANUBHAI THAKKER & ORS.

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

Appearance:

MS MEGHA CHITALIYA, APP for the Appellant(s) No. 1 MR VIRAL M PANDYA(5257) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3,4 MS DIPMALA S DESAI(6596) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 5 RULE SERVED for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 2,3,4 ==========================================================

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 10.08.2010 passed by the learned Special Judge, Court No.17, City Sessions Court, Ahmedabad, in Atrocity Criminal Case No.20 of 2008, for the offences punishable under Sections 504, 506(2), 294(b) 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 on 10.10.2007, the accused – Ushaben Manubhai Thakkar, who was residing opposite side of the complainant’s house ties one iron wire between her house and the house of the complainant on the passage, on the said wire, the accused hanged dirty clothes at the side of complainant’s house and as the water was dropping. At about 3:00 O’clock in the noon, the husband of the complainant told the accused to take away the clothes. Therefore, the accused got angry and gave filthy abuses. The accused by uttering such words, insulted the complainant and her husband. Thereafter, on hearing the same, their neighbours – Minbane Himmatbhai, Kalpanaben Kiritbhai, Babyben Sharma and Minaben Mistry and others gathered and persuaded them not to quarrel. At that time, Mayurbhai Manubhai Thakkar and Dimple Mayurbhai Thakkar by taking side of accused Nos.1 and 2 threatened the complainant could not lodge the complaint on the day on incident. Therefore, the complaint was filed against the respondent/s-accused on

16.10.2007 before the concerned police station.

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 Atrocity Criminal Case No.20 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 6 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 as well as 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 i