Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Guj) 20097
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
Hemant M. Prachchhak, J
STATE OF GUJARATV/sLAKHMANBHAI BHOJABHAI KESHWALA
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2024 of 2012
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Ms. Jirga Jhaveri
For the Respondents: Mr. Ruturaj Nanavati
An appellate court should not disturb a trial court's acquittal unless the decision is perverse or based on manifest illegality, as the accused benefits from a double presumption of innocence.
Headnote:The appellant State of Gujarat challenged the acquittal of three respondents under Sections 504, 506(2), and 114 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The prosecution alleged that the accused stopped the complainant and others with a weapon and used caste-based abuses. The trial court acquitted the accused, finding that the incident did not occur in a public place and lacked independent witness support. The primary issue was whether the prosecution proved the charges beyond reasonable doubt, specifically the requirement of 'public view' under the Atrocity Act. The court reasoned that the incident occurred in an agricultural field and the complainant's own witnesses testified they arrived after the event, thus failing to satisfy the ingredients of Section 3(1)(x). The court further highlighted the 'double presumption' of innocence that applies to an accused who has already been acquitted by a trial court. Resultantly, it is dismissed. The impugned judgment and order of acquittal passed by the trial Court is hereby confirmed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. summary of case facts and trial court acquittal. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 2. arguments regarding public view and evidence reliability. (Para 9 , 10) |
| 3. lack of independent witnesses and public view. (Para 11) |
| 4. double presumption of innocence in appellate review. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15) |
| 5. confirmation of acquittal due to lack of evidence. (Para 16 , 17 , 18) |
JUDGMENT
1. The appellant - State of Gujarat has preferred this appeal under Section 378(1)(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Code’ for short) against the judgment and order dated 12.10.2012 passed by the learned Special Judge (Atrocity) & 5th (Ad-hoc) Additional Sessions Judge, Junagadh (hereinafter be referred to as “the trial Court”) in Sessions (Atrocity) Case No.23 of 2011, whereby the trial Court has acquitted the original accused No.1 to 3 (respondents herein) from the offences punishable under Sections 504, 506(2) and 114 etc of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter be referred to as “the IPC”) and under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter be referred to as “the Atrocity Act”).
2. Short facts of the prosecution case are that the complainant Karshanbhai Lakhmanbhai Parmar, who was belonging to Scheduled Caste, residing at village Antroli, Mangrol, Junagadh, had registered his complaint with Shil Police Station against the accused persons stating therein that, on 19.11.2010 the complainant, his wife, son and nephew were going to their farm. At that time, the accused persons came there holding with Pana (weapon), stopped them and gave filthy abuses relating to his caste by giving threats to kill them. Hence, the complainant has registered complaint against the accused persons. After completion of the investigation charge-sheet was filed against the accused persons before JMFC, Junagadh. Thereafter, the said case was committed to the Sessions Court as per the provisions of Section 209 of the Code.
2.2 The charge was framed against the accused persons for the offences punishable under Sections 504, 506(2) and 114 of the IPC and under Section 3(1)(x) of the Atrocity Act. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and pleaded for trial and hence, the case was tried by the learned Sessions Judge, Junagadh.
3. It appears from the records that to prove the case, the prosecution has examined the following witnesses:-
| P.W. No. | Name of Witnesses | Exhibit |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Rameshbhai Maldebhai Parmar | 14 |
| 2 | Complainant – Kersanbhai Lakhmanbhai Parmar | 18 |
| 3 | Shantaben Kersanbhai Parmar (Complainant’s wife) | 20 |
| 4 | Pravinbhai Vejabhai Parmar (Complainant’s cousin) | 21 |
| 5 | Mayur Kersanbhai Parmar (Complainant’s son) | 25 |
| 6 | Rambhai Lakhmanbhai Parmar | 26 |
| 7 | Khimabhai Nagabhai Parmar | 27 |
| 8 | Iqbalkhan Habibkhan Turk | 28 |
| 9 | Natversinh Lakshmanbhai Bhalgaiya | 31 |
| 10 | Pareshkumar Javaharlal Trivedi | 35 |
4. In addition to this, the prosecution has also produced the following documentary evidence:-
| Sr. No. | Particulars | Exhibit |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Panchnama of place of offence | 15 |
| 2 | Arrest Panchnama of accused | 16 |
| 3 | Complaint | 19 |
| 4 | Caste certificate of complainant | 29 |
| 5 | Letter regarding verification of road from Antroli to Divasa | 30 |
| 6 | Copy of wireless message | 32 |
| 7 | Copy of station diary extract | 33 |
| 8 | Special report of crime | 34 |
| 9 | Copy of fax message | 36 |
| 10 | Copy of extract of FIR | 37 |
5. After closure of the evidence, the statements of the accused under section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 have been recorded wherein they denied of having committed any offence and have stated that they are innocent.
6. After hearing both sides and considering the evidence on records, the trial Court by impugned judgment and order has acquitted the accused from all the charges levelled against them.
7. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment and order of acquittal the appellant – State of Gujarat has preferred this A
