Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Bhurabhai Amibhai Desai on 30 April, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2139/2010 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/04/2026
undefined
Reserved On : 09/04/2026
Pronounced On : 30/04/2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2139 of 2010
==========================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
BHURABHAI AMIBHAI DESAI & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS. MEGHA CHITALIYA, APP for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR PRATIK B BAROT(3711) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1
NOTICE SERVED for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SANJEEV J.THAKER
CAV JUDGMENT
1. Feeling aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment and order of acquittal dated 31.08.2010, passed by the learned Special Judge (Atrocity), Mehsana, in Special Atrocity Case No. 18/2010, for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 504, and 506(2) of the Indian Penal Code, and Section 3(1)(X) of the Scheduled Castes, and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, 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 lower Court, is that the complainant approached the accused for a routine matter related to signing a school document. On this, the accused became aggressive, started Page 1 of 18 Uploaded by ADITYA SINGH(HC02376) on Fri May 01 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 05:09:15 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2139/2010 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/04/2026 undefined abusing the complainant in filthy language, and threatened to kill him. It is further alleged that the accused caused simple injuries to the complainant and insulted him by using caste- related abusive words in a public place. Due to this conduct, the accused is alleged to have committed offences involving hurt, intentional insult, criminal intimidation, and caste-based humiliation. 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.18/2010. 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 6 witnesses and also produced 5 documentary evidence before the trial Court, which are described in the impugned judgment are as under;
Page 2 of 18 Uploaded by ADITYA SINGH(HC02376) on Fri May 01 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 05:09:15 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2139/2010 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/04/2026 undefined Oral Evidences Sr.No. Exh. No. Particulars
1. Exh-8 Deposition of Complainant Ratibhai Jivabhai Deposition of Witness Pravinbhai Madhavlal
2. Exh-13 Patel
3. Exh-14 Deposition of Witness Bhavesh Ratibhai Parmar
4. Exh-18 Deposition of Witness Baldevbhai Punjabhai Deposition of Investigating Police Officer
5. Exh-19 Kalabhai Varu
6. Exh-20 Deposition of P.S.O. Maheshbhai Mohanlal Documentary Evidences Sr.No. Exh. No. Particulars
1. Exh-9 Original Complaint of the Complainant Certificate showing the Complainant belongs to
2. Exh-10 Scheduled Caste
3. Exh-15 P.S.O.'s Duty Order regarding the crime
4. Exh-16 Panchnama of the scene of the offence
5. Exh-21 Station Diary
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 Page 3 of 18 Uploaded by ADITYA SINGH(HC02376) on Fri May 01 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 05:09:15 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2139/2010 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/04/2026 undefined 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 have seen that the evidence produced on record is reliable and believable and it was proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused had committed an offence in question. It is, therefore, submitted that this Court may allow this appeal by appreciating the evidence led before the learned trial Court.
7. As against that, learned advocate for the respondent/s would support the impugned judgment passed by the learned trial Court and has submitted that the learned trial Court has not committed any error in acquitting the accused. The trial Court has taken possible view as the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, it is prayed to dismiss the present appeal by confirming the impugned judgment and order passed by Page 4 of 18 Uploaded by ADITYA SINGH(HC02376) on Fri May 01 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 05:09:15 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2139/2010 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/04/2026 undefined the learned trial Court.
8. In the aforesaid background, considering the oral as well as documentary evidence on record, independently and dispassionately and considering the impugned judgment and order of the trial Court, the following aspects weighed with the Court:
8.1 The prosecution has mainly relied on the complaint which is produced vide Exhibit-9, and it is the case of the prosecution that as the son of the complainant was studying in 12th standard, and as he wanted to take scholarship, he had taken the form from the accused and thereafter, his son Chamar Bhavesh Kumar Ratilal, had gone to the high school, and had met the principal, and at that time the principal of the school had informed the son of the complainant to initially get the signature of the Secretary of the Valasna Dudh Utpadan Mandli Dairy, and pursuant to that the complainant had gone to meet the accused for his signature and stamp on 21.09.2009, and on the road near a shop, he had met the accused, and he had informed the accused to sign on the form and place the seal of the dairy, and at that time the accused had taken the form from the complainant, and started abusing the complainant of his caste, and stated that he will not put his signature or the Page 5 of 18 Uploaded by ADITYA SINGH(HC02376) on Fri May 01 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 05:09:15 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2139/2010 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/04/2026 undefined stamp of the Valasna Dudh Utpadan Mandli Dairy, and had threatened him of his life, and had also torn off the said form, and had stated that only if he receives an amount of Rs. 200/-, he will place his signature and stamp of the Valsana Dudh Utpadan Mandli Dairy, and saying so he had physically assaulted the complainant, and had hurled abuses on the complainant, and at that time Chamar Baldevbhai Pujabhai came and intervened. In the said complaint it has been stated that the said incident had taken place near the barber shop.
8.2. The prosecution has examined the complainant Ratibhai Jivabhai as PW-1 vide Exhibit-8, in his deposition he has stated that the accused had demanded an amount of Rs. 2000/- from the complainant. He has also reiterated what has been stated in his complaint with respect to the fact that when his son brought the form, the secretary had stated that first they will have to go to the high school to get the signature and stamp on the form and thereafter, he will put his signature and stamp, and when the son went to the high school, the principal had stated that first they will have to get the signature and stamp of the Secretary of the Dairy, and that is how the complainant had gone to meet the secretary, who had demanded an amount of Rs.2000/- to fill up the said form.Page 6 of 18 Uploaded by ADITYA SINGH(HC02376) on Fri May 01 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 05:09:15 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2139/2010 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/04/2026 undefined 8.3. The prosecution has thereafter examined PW-2 as Praveenbhai Patel vide Exhibit-13, he was the school principal of the school at Udani, in his deposition, he has stated that the son of the complainant had come to him with a blank form which was not filled up, and at that time he had informed that he cannot put his signature and stamp on a blank form, and therefore, the son of the complainant was instructed to put his name, address and standard in which he was studying, and thereafter, he will place his signature. He has also informed that thereafter, the said student i.e., the son of the complainant had never come to meet him. In his cross-examination, it is denied that the son of the complainant had come to him, and he had informed to get the signature and stamp of the authorized officer of the dairy.
8.4. The prosecution has thereafter examined the son of the complainant Bhaveshbhai Parmar vide Exhibit-14 as PW- 3, he has reiterated what has been stated by PW-2 i.e., the school principal, he has stated that the school principal was not ready to put his signature and stamp on a blank paper, and therefore, he had given the form to his father. In his cross-examination, he has also admitted the fact that the school principal had only informed him that he will put his signature and seal, other than that the school principal had Page 7 of 18 Uploaded by ADITYA SINGH(HC02376) on Fri May 01 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 05:09:15 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2139/2010 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/04/2026 undefined not informed him anything else and hence, the said statement is contrary to what has been stated by the complainant, as the complainant in his complaint and deposition stated that the son of the complainant had informed him that the principal had instructed to first get the signature and seal of the authorized person of the dairy, and the son of the complainant himself denies of any such fact.
8.5. The prosecution has thereafter examined the brother of the complainant i.e. Baldevbhai Pujabhai as PW-4 vide Exhibit-18, though, the complainant states that at the time of incident said Baldevbhai was present, and he intervened when the accused was physically assaulting the complainant, and was hurling abuses on the complainant, but the said witness denies the said fact and does not support the case of the prosecution and has turned hostile. 8.6. The prosecution has thereafter examined the D.Y.S.P., Kalabhai Maldevbhai Baru vide Exhibit-19 as PW-5. The prosecution has also examined the P.S.O. Mahesh Mohandas vide Exhibit-20 as PW-6.
8.7. If the entire case of the prosecution is taken into consideration, there are lot of contradictions in the facts Page 8 of 18 Uploaded by ADITYA SINGH(HC02376) on Fri May 01 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 05:09:15 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2139/2010 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/04/2026 undefined stated by the complainant himself and the son of the complainant. The fact also remains that though, the entire incident is alleged to have taken place on the main road, but the prosecution has not been able to prove the facts by any other independent witnesses, who were present at the time of incident. Moreover, there are also contradictions with respect to the fact that the complainant had gone to get the signature and seal of the manager of the dairy. In view of the fact that the said fact was not necessary even according to the son of the complainant, and of the principal of the school. Moreover, there is also a contradiction with respect to the alleged amount that was demanded by the accused. In view of the fact that the complainant in his complaint states, that the accused had demanded an amount of Rs.200/- for filling up the form, and in his deposition he has stated that the accused had demanded an amount of Rs. 2000/- to sign and place his signature on the said form. 8.8. Moreover in the present case there is no medical evidence produced by the prosecution to prove the case of physical assault by the accused on the complainant. The fact remains that even the brother of the complainant Baldevbhai Pujabhai, who has been examined as PW-4, vide Exhibit-18, has not supported the case of the prosecution. In view of the fact, he has stated that he was not aware of any such Page 9 of 18 Uploaded by ADITYA SINGH(HC02376) on Fri May 01 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 05:09:15 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2139/2010 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/04/2026 undefined incident, and has not supported the case of the complainant that he had intervened on 21.09.2009, when the complainant was allegedly being assaulted by the accused. 8.9. Moreover, in the complaint it has been stated that the incident had taken place at barber shop near Valsana village. The panchnama produced vide Exhibit-16, states that the panch witnesses were called at near the four lanes at Gram Panchayat Office, and if the deposition of the complainant is taken into consideration, the complainant has stated that the incident had taken place at the Village Dairy. Therefore, there are contradictions with respect to the place of offence and also the demand of Rs.200/-, which had been alleged to have been demanded by the accused which has been stated in the complaint produced vide Exhibit-9, and the deposition produced vide Exhibit-8, which states that the demand of Rs.2000/- by the accused.
8.10. Therefore, the prosecution has not proved the case against the accused for the offence as alleged. Moreover, as per the observations made by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sajan Sakhariya Vs. State of Kerala and others reported in AIR 2024 SC 4557, every insult or intimidation would not amount to an offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, unless such insult or intimidation is Page 10 of 18 Uploaded by ADITYA SINGH(HC02376) on Fri May 01 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 05:09:15 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2139/2010 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/04/2026 undefined started at a victim because he is a member of a particular Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes. Therefore, from the allegations made in the complaint, the prosecution has not proved that the accused is guilty of an offence under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
8.11. The trial Court, while considering the evidences in detail, has observed that the prosecution has failed to prove the case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. While discussing the evidence in detail, the trial court has found that the only allegation against the accused is of speaking indecent words against the caste of the complainant. The trial Court has gone into the evidence in detail and has come to the conclusion that the accused are not guilty of the alleged offence.
9. Further, learned APP is not in a position to show any evidence to take a contrary view in the matter or that the approach of the Court below is vitiated by some manifest illegality or that the decision is perverse or that the Court below has ignored the material evidence on record. In above view of the matter, this Court is of the considered opinion that the Court below was completely justified in passing impugned judgment and order.
Page 11 of 18 Uploaded by ADITYA SINGH(HC02376) on Fri May 01 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 05:09:15 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2139/2010 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/04/2026 undefined
10. Considering the impugned judgment, the trial Court has recorded that there was no direct evidence connecting the accused with the incident and there are contradictions in the depositions of the prosecution witnesses. In absence of the direct evidence, it cannot be proved that the accused are involved in the offence. Further, the motive of the accused behind the incident is not established. The trial Court has rightly considered all the evidence on record and passed the impugned judgment. The trial Court has rightly evaluated the facts and the evidence on record.
11. It is also a settled legal position that in acquittal appeal, the appellate court is not required to re-write the judgment or to give fresh reasoning, when the reasons assigned by the Court below are found to be just and proper. Such principle is down by the Apex Court in the case of State of Karnataka Vs. Hemareddy, reported in AIR 1981 SC 1417 wherein it is held as under:
"... This court has observed in Girija Nandini Devi V. Bigendra Nandini Chaudhary (1967)1 SCR 93: (AIR 1967 SC 1124) that it is not the duty of the appellate court when it agrees with the view of the trial court on the evidence to repeat the narration of the evidence Page 12 of 18 Uploaded by ADITYA SINGH(HC02376) on Fri May 01 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 05:09:15 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2139/2010 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/04/2026 undefined or to reiterate the reasons given by the trial court expression of general agreement with the reasons given by the Court the decision of which is under appeal, will ordinarily suffice."
12. Thus, in case the appellate court agrees with the reasons and the opinion given by the lower court, then the discussion of evidence at length is not necessary.
13. In the case of Ram Kumar v. State of Haryana, reported in AIR 1995 SC 280, Supreme Court has held as under:
"The powers of the High Court in an appeal from order of acquittal to reassess the evidence and reach its own conclusions under Sections 378 and 379, Cr.P.C. are as extensive as in any appeal against the order of conviction.
But as a rule of prudence, it is desirable that the High Court should give proper weight and consideration to the view of the Trial Court with regard to the credibility of the witness, the presumption of innocence in favour of Page 13 of 18 Uploaded by ADITYA SINGH(HC02376) on Fri May 01 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 05:09:15 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2139/2010 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/04/2026 undefined the accused, the right of the accused to the benefit of any doubt and the slowness of appellate Court in justifying a finding of fact arrived at by a Judge who had the advantage of seeing the witness. It is settled law that if the main grounds on which the lower Court has based its order acquitting the accused are reasonable and plausible, and the same cannot entirely and effectively be dislodged or demolished, the High Court should not disturb the order of acquittal."
14. As observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajesh Singh & Others vs. State of Uttar Pradesh reported in (2011) 11 SCC 444 and in the case of Bhaiyamiyan Alias Jardar Khan and Another vs. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in (2011) 6 SCC 394, while dealing with the judgment of acquittal, unless reasoning by the trial Court is found to be perverse, the acquittal cannot be upset. It is further observed that High Court's interference in such appeal in somewhat circumscribed and if the view taken by the trial Court is possible on the evidence, the High Court should stay its hands and not interfere in the matter in the Page 14 of 18 Uploaded by ADITYA SINGH(HC02376) on Fri May 01 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 05:09:15 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2139/2010 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/04/2026 undefined belief that if it had been the trial Court, it might have taken a different view.
15. In the case of Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka, reported in (2007) 4 SCC 415, the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed as under:
"42. From the above decisions, in our considered view, the following general principles regarding powers of the appellate court while dealing with an appeal against an order of acquittal emerge:
(1) An appellate court has full power to review, reappreciate and reconsider the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded. (2) The Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 puts no limitation, restriction or condition on exercise of such power and an appellate court on the evidence before it may reach its own conclusion, both on questions of fact and of law.
(3) Various expressions, such as,
"substantial and compelling
Page 15 of 18
Uploaded by ADITYA SINGH(HC02376) on Fri May 01 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 05:09:15 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2139/2010 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/04/2026
undefined
reasons", "good and sufficient
grounds", "very strong
circumstances", "distorted
conclusions", "glaring mistakes", etc. are not intended to curtail extensive powers of an appellate court in an appeal against acquittal. Such phraseologies are more in the nature of "flourishes of language" to emphasise the reluctance of an appellate court to interfere with acquittal than to curtail the power of the court to review the evidence and to come to its own conclusion.
(4) An appellate court, however,
must bear in mind that in case of
acquittal, there is double
presumption in favour of the
accused. Firstly, the presumption of innocence is available to him under the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that every person shall be presumed to be innocent unless he is proved guilty Page 16 of 18 Uploaded by ADITYA SINGH(HC02376) on Fri May 01 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 05:09:15 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2139/2010 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/04/2026 undefined by a competent court of law.
Secondly, the accused having
secured his acquittal, the
presumption of his innocence is
further reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by the trial court.
(5) If two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the appellate court should not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial court."
16. The Hon'ble Apex Court, in a recent decision, in the case of Constable 907 Surendra Singh and Another V/s State of Uttarakhand reported in (2025) 5 SCC 433, has held in paragraph 24 as under:
"24. It could thus be seen that it is a settled legal position that the interference with the finding of acquittal recorded by the learned trial Judge would be warranted by the High Court only if the judgment of acquittal suffers from patent perversity; that the same is based on a misreading/omission to consider material evidence on record; and that no two reasonable views are Page 17 of 18 Uploaded by ADITYA SINGH(HC02376) on Fri May 01 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 05:09:15 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2139/2010 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/04/2026 undefined possible and only the view consistent with the guilt of the accused is possible from the evidence available on record."
17. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court while considering the scope of appeal under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 no case is made out to interfere with the impugned judgment and order of acquittal.
18. In view of above facts and circumstances of the case, on my careful re-appreciation of the entire evidence, I found that there is no infirmity or irregularity in the findings of fact recorded by learned trial Court and under the circumstances, the learned trial Court has rightly acquitted the respondent/s - accused for the elaborate reasons stated in the impugned judgment and I also endorse the view/finding of the learned trial Court leading to the acquittal.
19. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, the present Criminal Appeal fails to prove and the same deserves to be dismissed and is dismissed, accordingly. Record & Proceedings be remitted to the concerned trial Court forthwith.
(SANJEEV J.THAKER,J) ADITYA SINGH Page 18 of 18 Uploaded by ADITYA SINGH(HC02376) on Fri May 01 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 05:09:15 IST 2026