Gujarat High Court
Ahir Naran Govind Solanki vs State Of Gujarat on 18 September, 2025
Author: Gita Gopi
Bench: Gita Gopi
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/637/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/09/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 637 of 2007
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE GITA GOPI
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
√ ―
==========================================================
AHIR NARAN GOVIND SOLANKI & ANR.
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
ABATED for the Appellant(s) No. 2
MR ASHISH M DAGLI(2203) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR ROHANKUMAR RAWAL, APP for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE GITA GOPI
Date : 18/09/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Challenge was given by the appellants by filing the appeal under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 13.3.2007 passed by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Veraval in Atrocity Sessions Case no.3 of 2004, whereby both the accused were convicted for the offence punishable under Section 332 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) Page 1 of 20 Uploaded by MAULIK R. PANDYA(HC00205) on Fri Sep 19 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 20 05:07:57 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/637/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/09/2025 undefined and were ordered to undergo sentence of three years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.5,000/- with default stipulation that in failure to pay the fine amount, further to undergo six months rigorous imprisonment. Both the accused were acquitted of the charges under Sections 506(2) and 114 IPC and further were acquitted for the charge under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities Act), 1989 (hereinafter referred to as "the Atrocities Act").
2. During pendency of the present appeal, the appellant no.2 being accused no.2 of the Sessions Case died and hence, the present appeal stood abated against him.
3. Learned advocate Mr. Ashish M. Dagli, concentrating his argument in connection with the appellant no.1, submitted that the allegation under the Atrocities Act as well as Page 2 of 20 Uploaded by MAULIK R. PANDYA(HC00205) on Fri Sep 19 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 20 05:07:57 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/637/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/09/2025 undefined Sections 504 and 506(2) IPC were not found to be proved by the learned Trial Court Judge and taking into consideration the crux of the complaint, the offence under Section 332 IPC would also not become believable. Advocate Mr. Dagli submitted that the intent of the accused becomes a crucial factor, which requires to be examined in order to consider any act of the accused to deter the public servant in discharge of his public duty. Advocate Mr. Dagli submitted that the accused were demanding for the solvency certificate papers and the insistence was of the accused to personally hand over the solvency certificate since they were to be produced in the Court of law for bail purpose. Advocate Mr. Dagli submitted that the case has been put up by the accused for issuance of the solvency certificate. The complainant had demanded money, which was not agreeable to the appellant-accused and therefore, in counter, the FIR has been filed. Advocate Mr. Dagli further submitted that Page 3 of 20 Uploaded by MAULIK R. PANDYA(HC00205) on Fri Sep 19 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 20 05:07:57 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/637/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/09/2025 undefined the case of the complainant could not be proved as alleged of causing injury since no medical evidence has been produced during the trial, nor the complainant himself had made any effort to visit the Doctor for the treatment of the injuries. It is also the submission of learned advocate Mr. Dagli that the persons who were alleged to be present at the office who was the Sarpanch - Vimal Devsibhai Solanki and Sarman Kachara Vadher at the Panchayat office have not supported the complainant's case. It is their specific evidence that no such incident had occurred.
4. Countering the arguments, Mr. Rohankumar H. Rawal, learned APP has submitted that the undisputed fact, which has come on record is of the presence of the complainant in the Panchayat office, where both the accused had come there and had abused the complainant and had caused injury, while he was performing his duty. The Page 4 of 20 Uploaded by MAULIK R. PANDYA(HC00205) on Fri Sep 19 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 20 05:07:57 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/637/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/09/2025 undefined very act itself proves the fact of voluntarily causing hurt to deter the Talati-cum-Mantri, the complainant to perform his duty. Mr. Rawal, learned APP has submitted that threat of both the accused were so severe that the complainant had to place leave from his duty on that day and immediately, the complainant had informed by fax to the District Superintendent of Police and on the basis of the fax, Police Sub-Inspector-Shri Pandya of Talala Police Station had visited the complainant for the registration of the complaint. Referring to the observations made by the learned Trial Court, Mr. Rawal submitted that the learned Judge has rightly appreciated the evidence on record and acquitted the accused from other charges while the charges under Section 332 IPC had been proved and therefore, had requested to uphold the judgment of conviction.
Page 5 of 20 Uploaded by MAULIK R. PANDYA(HC00205) on Fri Sep 19 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 20 05:07:57 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/637/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/09/2025 undefined
5. The conviction is under Section 332 IPC. For ready reference, Section 332 IPC is reproduced hereunder:-
"332. Voluntarily causing hurt to deter public servant from his duty.-- Whoever voluntarily causes hurt to any person being a public servant in the discharge of his duty as such public servant, or with intent to prevent or deter that person or any other public servant from discharging his duty as such public servant or in consequence of anything done or attempted to be done by that person in the lawful discharge of his duty as such public servant, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both."
5.1 The ingredients of offence under Section 332 IPC are:-
(i) hurt must have been caused to a public servant, and
(ii) it must have been caused
(a) while such public servant was acting in the discharge of his duty as such, or Page 6 of 20 Uploaded by MAULIK R. PANDYA(HC00205) on Fri Sep 19 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 20 05:07:57 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/637/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/09/2025 undefined
(b) in order to prevent or deter him from discharging his duty as a public servant, or
(c) in consequences of his having done or attempted to anything in the lawful discharge of his duty as a public servant.
5.2 The evidence which is necessary to establish the offence under Section 332 IPC is the accused voluntarily causing bodily pain, disease or infirmity to the victim and the victim of hurt is a public servant and at the time of causing hurt, for the public servant concerned was discharging his duties as public servant.
6. The allegation against both the accused as per the charge framed below Exh.5 in Atrocity Sessions Case no.3 of 2004 by the learned 2 nd Additional Sessions Judge, Veraval refers that on 2.9.2003 at about 12.30 hrs., the complainant was serving as Talati-cum-Mantri at the Gram Page 7 of 20 Uploaded by MAULIK R. PANDYA(HC00205) on Fri Sep 19 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 20 05:07:57 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/637/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/09/2025 undefined Panchayat office of Maljhinjhva Village. Both the accused entered the office and demanded for the solvency certificate papers to be given in hand. The complainant refused to do so and therefore, the accused got excited and it is alleged that the accused gave fisticuffs to the complainant and threatened to kill him and thereby, offence under Sections 332, 506(2) and 114 IPC were charged against them.
7. No charge under Section 323 or like sections which would fall under Section 321 IPC have been invoked against the accused. Section 321 IPC defines "voluntarily causing hurt". Thus, no case of physical hurt was charged against the accused. The learned Judge has also not believed the case under Section 506(2) IPC of any threat to the complainant. The case under the Atrocities Act for the offence punishable under Section 3(1)(x) of the Atrocities Act was also not proved and not believed by the learned Trial Page 8 of 20 Uploaded by MAULIK R. PANDYA(HC00205) on Fri Sep 19 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 20 05:07:57 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/637/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/09/2025 undefined Court Judge.
8. In background of the above position of the case, the evidence of the complainant is required to be revisited and reassessed to observe whether there was any intention of the accused and more specifically the present appellant to deter in performance of his public duty.
9. PW1 - Dinesh Hardas Solanki and PW2 - Aamad @ Chiman Noormohammad are the Panchas of the Panchnama of the place of offence Exh.12. Both the Panchas have not supported the prosecution case regarding the place, where the alleged incident is said to have taken place. Moreover, the Sarpanch - Vimleshkumar Devsibhai Solanki examined as PW4, has denied the incident. He has categorically stated that no such incident had occurred in his presence and has stated that it had not so happened that both the accused had come before the complainant demanding for the documents, which they had earlier given and had Page 9 of 20 Uploaded by MAULIK R. PANDYA(HC00205) on Fri Sep 19 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 20 05:07:57 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/637/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/09/2025 undefined not so happened that on that day and time, Talati-cum-Mantri had refused to give such documents stating it to be of Government record and that had informed that in the evening, he would produce the same in the Mamlatdar office. In the same way, the witness - Sarman Kacharabhai Vadher has not supported the prosecution case. Both the witnesses have stated that it had not so happened that they had intervened and had rescued the complainant.
10. The only evidence now remains on record is of the complainant himself who testifies that on 2.9.2003, the incident had occurred and on the day of the incident at about 9.30 a.m., he had started from Veraval on his motorcycle and had reached at about 10:00 a.m. at Maljhinjhva Village and he was present on his duty by opening the office. As per the deposition, the Sarpanch of the Village Vimal and Sarman had come in the Panchayat office and they were Page 10 of 20 Uploaded by MAULIK R. PANDYA(HC00205) on Fri Sep 19 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 20 05:07:57 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/637/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/09/2025 undefined sitting there and thereafter, an hour later, both the appellants had come to him in the office, the appellant no.1 asked for the documents of the solvency, which the accused had given to the Talati on Monday. The accused had asked him to return back those papers, so the complainant stated that those were the Government documents and he would return it back in the evening at 06:00 p.m. at the Mamlatdar office.
11. The deposition of the complainant, thus, suggests that the present appellant was demanding from the complainant those papers which the accused had handed over to the complainant. It is not that the accused was asking from the complainant any other Government documents, which the complainant was required to issue in performance of his public duty. The insistence of the accused to hand over those documents in person would not be considered as Page 11 of 20 Uploaded by MAULIK R. PANDYA(HC00205) on Fri Sep 19 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 20 05:07:57 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/637/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/09/2025 undefined anything illegal since the accused was demanding his own papers, which he had handed over to the complainant as stated by the complainant himself that it was given to him on Monday.
12. The testimony further states that when the complainant refused to give the documents, the accused insisted for the documents there and immediately in hand. The allegation was that the appellant got excited and caught hold of his collar and passed castiest remarks in presence of Sarpanch - Vimal and Sarman who intervened to release the complainant. This deposition of the complainant has not been found proved by the learned Trial Court Judge. The Sarpanch - Vimal and Sarman have not supported the complainant. The physical injury has not been proved. No medical examination documents have been produced on record to prove that hurt has been caused to the public servant.
Page 12 of 20 Uploaded by MAULIK R. PANDYA(HC00205) on Fri Sep 19 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 20 05:07:57 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/637/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/09/2025 undefined
13. Further in the deposition, the complainant stated that thereafter, he left on his motorcycle for filing of the complaint and when he was passing through Village Ghunsiya, at that time, both the accused were found standing there who stopped him and had threatened him that if at all he would file any complaint, lest he would not remain alive and therefore, the complainant stated that because of the threat, he did not file any complaint while came back at Veraval and sent a fax to the police officer and he had taken leave from the duty on that day. On receipt of the fax by District Superintendent of Police, Police Sub-Inspector - Shri Pandya from Talala was sent for the complaint on 4.9.2003. The complainant identified the complaint Exh.16. The incident is alleged to have taken place on 2.9.2003 while the complaint was registered on 4.9.2003. PW6 - Ashok Shivkumar Pandya has affirmed of his following the instructions of the superior officer and visiting the house of Page 13 of 20 Uploaded by MAULIK R. PANDYA(HC00205) on Fri Sep 19 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 20 05:07:57 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/637/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/09/2025 undefined the complainant and taking his complaint. The witness - PW6 - Ashok Shivkumar Pandya has affirmed that the complaint, which was given before him, disclosed that it was some incident with regard to solvency certificate of the accused and the insistence of the accused to hand over the documents personally to him, which the complainant had denied to do so. The Deputy Superintendent of Police - Suresh Pandey is examined as PW7 who affirmed of receiving wireless message on 4.9.2003. He had taken over the investigation on 8.9.2003. He visited the place of incident and had drawn the Panchnama. The witness - PW7 stated that earlier prior to the incident on 31.8.2003, there was a dispute between the complainant and the accused and N.C. Complaint no.92/03 was filed at Veraval City Police Station and on the basis of that, a Chapter Case was filed against the accused. The said entry was placed in evidence at Exh.25 which is dated 31.8.2003. The said entry also Page 14 of 20 Uploaded by MAULIK R. PANDYA(HC00205) on Fri Sep 19 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 20 05:07:57 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/637/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/09/2025 undefined discloses that the accused had visited the house of the complainant on Sunday and had asked for the signature for the solvency with regard to their land, where the complainant had informed that he would do so only after verification, where entry at Exh.25 also states that the accused had threatened the complainant to beat him in case he fails to put his signature.
14. It appears that the dispute was with regard to solvency certificate. The complainant in his deposition has affirmed the fact that the solvency certificate would be necessary to be produced in the Court, which is issued on the basis of the land. The insistence on 31.8.2003 was of issuance of signature of the solvency certificate. It appears that though it was asked for, the complainant had not issued the solvency certificate. So again, on 2.9.2003, the accused visited his office and asked for the papers, which they had handed over to the complainant. Page 15 of 20 Uploaded by MAULIK R. PANDYA(HC00205) on Fri Sep 19 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 20 05:07:57 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/637/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/09/2025 undefined It does not appear that on 2.9.2003, the accused were insisting the complainant for issuance of the solvency certificate, rather they were demanding back the documents, which they had handed over for the solvency certificate.
15. In the case of D. Chattaiah & Anr. v. State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1978 SC 1441, it has been observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court with regard to intent to prevent or deter a public servant from discharge of his duties. The relevant observations are as under:-
"The intent to prevent or deter a public servant from discharging his duties as such public servant is an essential ingredient of the charge under the second part of S.332. Where the facts disclose that a public servant was assaulted while in office as a sequel of an earlier private quarrel and the assault had no real nexus or casual connection, or consequential relation with the performance of the public servant's duty as public servant, the accused could not be charged and convicted under S.332, I.P.C. (Conviction altered to one under S.323 in the instant case)."Page 16 of 20 Uploaded by MAULIK R. PANDYA(HC00205) on Fri Sep 19 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 20 05:07:57 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/637/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/09/2025 undefined
16. Here in the case of D. Chattaiah (supra), it has been noted that the incident was not the outcome of anything connected with the performance of the complainant's duty as public servant, nor was there any oblique allegation suggesting that he was assaulted with intent to prevent or deter him from doing his official duty. All that was alleged by in the FIR was that while he was attending to dispatch work in the office on 29.11.1968 afternoon, three accused approached and questioned him as to why he had abused them. On the informant's denial of the accusation, they beat him and in so assaulting the informant, the accused used a stick and scissor. Here in this case, no such case of physical hurt has been proved. The intent of the accused to deter him from performing any public duty is also not proved. The evidence of the complainant suggests that the accused were demanding back the documents, which they had handed over to the Page 17 of 20 Uploaded by MAULIK R. PANDYA(HC00205) on Fri Sep 19 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 20 05:07:57 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/637/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/09/2025 undefined complainant. The complainant had connected the accused demand for the documents as was for issuance of the solvency certificate. The earlier incident which had culminated into N.C. Complaint was dated 31.8.2003, while the alleged incident is of 2.9.2003, which complaint came to be filed on 4.9.2003 and the entry in the Police Station at Exh.22 refers that the accused had asked for the documents with regard to solvency certificate in person and when he denied to give so, the complainant alleged that he was deterred in performing his duties alleging that he sustained fisticuffs and threat to life. The case of hurt has not been proved, nor the case of threat has been believed by the learned Trial Court. The genesis of the incident is of accused demanding the documents, which they had handed over to the complainant as Talati-cum-Mantri. The allegation is also made in the defence that the complainant was demanding bribe amount for issuance of the solvency certificate. Though Page 18 of 20 Uploaded by MAULIK R. PANDYA(HC00205) on Fri Sep 19 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 20 05:07:57 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/637/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/09/2025 undefined that fact has not been proved, however, if the N.C. Complaint Exh.25 dated 31.8.2003 is read with the complaint dated 4.9.2003, then, the accused had initially asked for the solvency certificate. However, it appears that the complainant had failed to issue the same and therefore, the accused had demanded back the documents in connection with the solvency certificate, which as per the complainant were handed over to him on Monday. As referred in the case of D. Chattaiah (supra), even if an assault has been made and assault has no real connection or nexus or relation with the performance by the complainant as a public servant and when there is no evidence to show that the intent of the assailant was to prevent or discharge of his duty, then no conviction can lie under Section 323 IPC.
17. In view of the analysis of the evidence with the ingredients as mandated under Section 332 IPC Page 19 of 20 Uploaded by MAULIK R. PANDYA(HC00205) on Fri Sep 19 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 20 05:07:57 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/637/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/09/2025 undefined and the case law referred to hereinabove, this Court finds that the conviction under Section 332 IPC of the present appellant no.1 is erroneous and is required to be set aside.
18. In the result, the appeal is allowed in the above terms. The judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 13.3.2007 passed by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Veraval in Atrocity Sessions Case no.3 of 2004 is set aside. Bailbond discharged. The appellant no.1 is acquitted of all charges. Registry is directed to send the record and proceedings back to the concerned Trial Court forthwith.
(GITA GOPI,J) Maulik Page 20 of 20 Uploaded by MAULIK R. PANDYA(HC00205) on Fri Sep 19 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 20 05:07:57 IST 2025