Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Umesh Ravjibhai Patel on 2 August, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1122/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/08/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1122 of 2012
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE S.V. PINTO Sd/-
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
NO
==========================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
UMESH RAVJIBHAI PATEL & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR.PRANAV DHAGAT, APP for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR AR MAJMUDAR(428) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1,2
RULE SERVED for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 3
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE S.V. PINTO
Date : 02/08/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant- State under Section 378(1)(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the judgement and order of acquittal passed by learned 8th Additional District Judge & AdditionalSessions Judge, Vadodara (hereinafter referred to as "the learned Trial Court") in Special (ATRO) Case No. 29 of 2009 on 24.04.2012, whereby, the learned Trial Court has acquitted the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 for the offence for the offence punishable under Sections 323, 342, 504 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and Section 135 of the Gujarat Police Act and Section 3 (1)(10) of the Scheduled Page 1 of 17 Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Thu Aug 14 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Aug 15 23:10:20 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1122/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/08/2025 undefined Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities ) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as the Atrocities Act) 1.1] The respondents are hereinafter referred to as "the accused"
as they stood in the rank and file in the original case for the sake of convenience, clarity and brevity.
2] The brief facts that emerge from the record of the case are as under: -
2.1] On 28-12-2008, the complainant Mukeshkumar Kantibhai Parmar was standing at the S.T.Depo at Karjan and at around 11.30 am, the accused came on motorcycle No.GJ-6-QQ-2062 and forcibly made the complainant to sit in the middle on the motorcycle and took him to the cabin of the accused No. 1 at Muval crossroads. The accused asked the complainant why he was supporting Salim Qasam Muslim and he was talking to his cousin-sister and the accused No. 1 took his belt and assaulted the complainant on his back and waist and both the accused assaulted the complainant, abused him and hurled caste-slurs against him. The complainant filed the complaint at the Karjan Police Station under Sections 342, 504 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act and Section 3 (1)(10) of the Atrocity Act, which came to be registered at Karjan Police Station as I-C.R. No. 267 of 2008.
Page 2 of 17 Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Thu Aug 14 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Aug 15 23:10:20 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1122/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/08/2025 undefined 2.2] The Investigating Officer recorded the statements of the
connected witnesses and collected the necessary documents and after completion of investigation the police filed the charge-sheet against the accused before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate First Class, Karjan and as the said offences against the accused were exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the case was committed to the Sessions Court, Kheda as per the provisions of Section 209 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the case was registered Special (ATRO) Case No. 29 of 2009.
2.3] The accused were duly served with the summons and the accused appeared before the learned Trial Court, and it was verified whether the copies of all the police papers were provided to the accused as per the provisions of Section 207 of the Code. A charge at Exh. 5 was framed against the accused and the statements of the accused were recorded at Exh. 6 and Exh.7 respectively, wherein, the accused denied all the contents of the charge and the entire evidence of the prosecution was taken on record.
2.4] The prosecution produced twelve and twelve documentary evidences to bring home the charge against the accused and after the learned Additional Public Prosecutor filed the closing pursis, the further Page 3 of 17 Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Thu Aug 14 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Aug 15 23:10:20 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1122/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/08/2025 undefined statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 were recorded, wherein, the accused denied all the evidence of the prosecution on record. The accused refused to step into the witness box or examine witnesses on their behalf and stated that a false case has been filed against them. After the arguments of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and the learned advocate for the accused were heard, the learned trial Court by the impugned judgment and order was pleased to acquit all the accused from all the charges leveled against them.
3. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said judgment and order of acquittal, the appellant - State has filed the present appeal mainly stating that the impugned judgment and order of acquittal passed by the learned Trial Court is contrary to law and evidence on record and the learned Trial Court has not appreciated the fact that all the witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution and during cross-examination, nothing adverse has been elicited in favour of the respondent. The case has been proved beyond reasonable doubts and the prosecution has successfully established the case against the respondent and the judgment and order of acquittal is unwarranted, illegal and without any basis in the eyes of law and the reasons stated while acquitting the respondent are Page 4 of 17 Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Thu Aug 14 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Aug 15 23:10:20 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1122/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/08/2025 undefined improper, perverse and bad in law. Hence the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Trial Court deserves to be quashed and set aside.
4. Heard Additional Public Prosecutor Mr.Pranav Dhagat for the appellant - State and learned advocate Mr. A.R.Majmudar for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Though served, the respondent No.3 did not appear either through an advocate or in person. Perused the impugned judgement and order of acquittal and have re-appreciated the entire evidence of the prosecution on record of the case.
5. Learned APP Mr. Pranav Dhagat has taken this Court through the entire evidence of the prosecution on record of the case and submitted that the judgment and order of acquittal is contrary to law and evidence on record and the learned trial Court has not appreciated the direct and indirect evidence in the case. That the complainant has supported the case of the prosecution and the witnesses have identified the accused before the learned trial Court. The prosecution has fully proved the case beyond reasonable doubts but the learned trial Court has relied on minor contradictions and has given undue weightage with regard to the place of incident. That the order passed by the learned trial Court is illegal, improper and perverse and is required to be quashed and set aside and the Page 5 of 17 Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Thu Aug 14 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Aug 15 23:10:20 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1122/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/08/2025 undefined appeal of the appellant must be allowed.
6. Learned advocate Mr. A.R.Majmudar appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 submits that the judgments and order has been passed after appreciation of all the evidence and the learned Court has appreciated the evidence in proper perspective and hence, the appeal of the appellant-State must be rejected.
7. At the outset, before discussing the facts of the present case, it would be appropriate to refer to the observations of the Apex Court in the case of Chandrappa & Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka reported in 2007 (4) SCC 415, wherein, the Apex Court has observed as under:
Recently, in Kallu v. State of M.P., (2006) 10 SCC 313 : AIR 2006 SC 831, this Court stated; "While deciding an appeal against acquittal, the power of the Appellate Court is no less than the power exercised while hearing appeals against conviction. In both types of appeals, the power exists to review the entire evidence. However, one significant difference is that an order of acquittal will not be interfered with, by an appellate court, where the judgment of the trial court is based on evidence and the view taken is reasonable and plausible. It will not reverse the decision of the trial court merely because a different view is possible. The appellate court will also bear in mind that there is a presumption of innocence in favour of the accused and the accused is entitled to get the benefit of any doubt. Further if it decides to interfere, it should assign reasons for differing with the decision of the trial court". (emphasis supplied) From the above decisions, in our considered view, the following general principles regarding powers of 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 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 puts no limitation, restriction or condition on exercise of such power and an appellate Page 6 of 17 Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Thu Aug 14 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Aug 15 23:10:20 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1122/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/08/2025 undefined 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 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 emphasize 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 available to him under the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that every person shall be presumed to be innocent unless he is proved guilty 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.
8. The law with regard to acquittal appeals is well crystallized and in acquittal appeals, there is a presumption of innocence in favour of the accused and it has finally culminated when a case ends in an acquittal. The learned Trial Court has appreciated all the evidence and when the learned Trial Court has come to a conclusion that the prosecution has not proved the case beyond reasonable doubts, the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused gets strengthened. There is no inhibition to reappreciate the evidence by the Appellate Court but if after Page 7 of 17 Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Thu Aug 14 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Aug 15 23:10:20 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1122/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/08/2025 undefined reappreciation, the view taken by the learned Trial Court was a possible view, there is no reason for the Appellate Court to interfere in the same.
9. In light on the above settled principles of law and considering the evidence on the prosecution, to bring home the charge against the accused, the prosecution has examined Prosecution Witness No.1- Mukeshkumar Kantibhai Parmar at Exhibit 13 and the witness is the complainant and has narrated the details as stated in the complaint, which is produced at Exhibit 14. The complainant has stated that he was waiting at the bus- stand on 28-12-2008 at around 11 a.m. when the accused came and told him that they would give him a job in the H.D.F.C. and forcibly made him sit on the motorcycle and brought him to the STD- PCO cabin at Muval crossroads. He was kept there for 6 to 7 hours and assaulted with belts and kicks. He was tied up till the evening and in the evening the accused No. 1 telephoned his father and his father came and took him home. He did not inform his father about the assaulting and after one day, when he was in pain, he informed his father about the same and filed the complaint on 30-12-2008, which is produced at Exhibit 14.
During the cross-examination by the learned advocate for the accused, the witness has stated that he was forcibly made to sit on the motorcycle between 11.30 - 12:00 noon and there were other passengers at the bus stand. Surrounding the bus-stand are Pan-Bidi shops, tea stalls Page 8 of 17 Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Thu Aug 14 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Aug 15 23:10:20 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1122/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/08/2025 undefined and hand carts selling toys etc. The place, from where, he was taken, had many shops and is a congested area and when he was made to forcibly sit on the bike, he shouted but no one heard him. They reached Muval at around 1 p.m. and the distance between Muval and Jalalpur is about 5 kilometers. The place at Muval was also surrounded by tea stalls, grocery shops, toys selling shops, selling toys etc. and he did not shout or make any sound at Muval. He did not inform his father why he was restrained at the cabin and he had gone to S.S.G.hospital on a motorcycle and at that time, he could talk. His father was riding the motorcycle and he had informed the doctor that he was assaulted by a belt and kicks. 9.1 Prosecution Witness No. 2 - Kantibhai Narayanbhai Parmar examined at Exhibit 16 is the father of the complainant and he has supported the case of the prosecution.
During the cross examination by the learned advocate for the accused, the witness has stated that he had taken his son on the 30 th for treatment and on 28th when he went to the STD booth, he spoke to the accused for five minutes and then took his son home. He has not seen Salim and when he went to the STD-PCO he spoke to Sureshbhai Patel, who is the uncle of the accused No.1 9.2 Prosecution Witness No. 3 - Shardaben Govindbhai examined at Exhibit 17 is the aunt of the complainant and she has stated Page 9 of 17 Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Thu Aug 14 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Aug 15 23:10:20 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1122/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/08/2025 undefined that the complainant - Mukeshkumar Kantihai Parmar had come to her house on 26-12-2008 at Karjan and he left for his house on 28-12-2008. She does not know what had happened on the way but she knew that somebody had assaulted her nephew Mukeshbhai.
9.3 Prosecution Witness No. 4 - Dr. Ashaben Ramprakash Gupta examined at Exhibit 18 is the Medical Officer, who was on duty at S.S.G. Hospital, Vadodara on 30-12-2008, when at about 5.10 PM, the complainant was brought for treatment by his father - Kantibhai Parmar. In the history, he had stated that he was assaulted by Umeshbhai Bhai with a belt, Sureshbhai by fist, Rahulbhai by a stick and 3-4 unknown persons on 28-12-2008 at 1:00 PM at Muval Crossroads in the STD, PCO shop. On examination, the patient was conscious and there was a bluish mark 5-6 inches over the back of the chest and the ultrasonography and x-ray were normal. The patient was discharged on the same day at 7.35 PM. During the cross-examination by the learned advocate for the accused , the witness has stated that in the history, the patient did not name Gaurav and the shape of the injury is not mentioned in the medical certificate produced at Exhibit 19. The witness has stated in the certificate, it is not mentioned, whether the injuries were horizontal or vertical and whether they were simple or grievous and in her presence, the patient did not have any vomiting of blood.
Page 10 of 17 Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Thu Aug 14 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Aug 15 23:10:20 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1122/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/08/2025 undefined 9.4 Prosecution Witness No. 5 - Hasmukhbhai Vitthalbhai
Parmar examined at Exhibit 20 is the panchwitness of the panchnama of the place of offence, which is produced at Exhibit 21. The witness has supported the case of the prosecution and during the cross-examination by the learned advocate for the accused, the witness has admitted that he is known to Kantibhai Vankar - the father of the complainant. 9.5 Prosecution Witness No. 6 - Praveenbhai Gumanbhai Rohit examined at Exhibit 22 and Prosecution Witness No. 7 Lokeshkumar Prafulbhai Patel examined at Exhibit 24 are the panchwitnesses of the arrest Panchnama, by which, the accused were arrested, which is produced at Exhibit 23. Both the witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution and have been declared hostile and have been cross- examined at length by the learned APP.
9.6 The prosecution has examined Prosecution Witness No. 8 - Varsanbhai Guhedabhai Rathva examined at Exhibit 25 was the ASI on duty at S.S.G. Hospital and has stated that on 30-12-2008 at around 17:00 hours, Dr. Ashaben Gupta had informed that Mukesh Kantilal Parmar, resident of Jalalpur village, Vankar Vas, was assaulted by Umesh, Suresh, Rahul and 3 to 4 other persons with belt, kicks and sticks and was admitted for treatment and the information was entered in the register at EPR No. 10407 and the vardhi was sent to the PSO on Page 11 of 17 Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Thu Aug 14 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Aug 15 23:10:20 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1122/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/08/2025 undefined telephone. The witness has produced the extract of the Register at Exhibit 26.
9.8 Prosecution Witness No. 9 - Manohar Ganpatrao Kadam examined at Exhibit 28 was working as the PSO at the Karjan Police Station and he has narrated the procedure that was done by him after he had received the vardhi and has produced the extract of the Station Diary at Exhibit 29. The witness has stated that he had gone to the SSG Hospital and found that the complainant had gone to Padra Police Station and thereafter had recorded the complaint as narrated by the complainant. The complaint was registered and during the cross examination by the learned advocate for the accused, the witness has stated that the incident, as narrated by the complainant, had taken place at Muval STD, PCO and no incident that had taken place at Muval, was investigated by the Padra Police Station, but the complaint was sent to the Karjan Police Station.
9.9 Prosecution Witness No. 10 - Ramanbhai Ranchodbhai Buckle No. 1651 examined at Exhibit 34 was the PSO at Padra Police Station on 30-12-2008 and he had registered the complaint of the complainant and has produced the extract of the Station Diary at Exhibit 35. Page 12 of 17 Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Thu Aug 14 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Aug 15 23:10:20 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1122/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/08/2025 undefined 9.10 Prosecution Witness No. 11 - Virjibhai Jivabhai Katara examined at Exhibit 36 is the Investigating Officer, who has narrated the procedure undertaken by him during investigation.
During the cross examination by the learned advocate for the accused, the witness has stated that the complaint at Exhibit 14 was recorded by the Unarmed Head Constable at Padra Police Station and the vardhi from the hospital was received on 30-12-2008 at 18:10 hours, in which, it was mentioned that the incident had occurred on 28-10-2008. The hospital vardhi named Umesh, Suresh, Rahul and 3-4 others and in the present case Suresh and Rahul and 3-4 others were not as accused. The complainant did not explain about the presence of the others and no further statement of the complainant was recorded.
During investigation, no statements about anyone surrounding the Karjan S.T.Depo, have been recorded and similarly no independent witnesses at Maval Road have also been recorded.
During investigation, it was not found that the accused had used any caste-slurs against the complainant and during investigation, it was not found that the complainant was restrained and was freed by the police. The telephone call details of the complainant or the accused were not investigated and he had not investigated whether the accused No. 1 was the owner, of the STD PCO booth at Maval cross-road whether he Page 13 of 17 Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Thu Aug 14 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Aug 15 23:10:20 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1122/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/08/2025 undefined had not investigated about the ownership of the STD-PCO booth at Moval.
9.11 The prosecution has examined Prosecution Witness No. 12 - Mahendrasinh Somsinh Mahida, Buckle No. 1632 examined at Exhibit 41 is the PSO at Karjan Police Station and he has stated that the complainant Mukeshbhai Kantibhai Parmar had come to file the complaint which was recorded at zero number and sent to Padra Police Station as the offence had taken place at Padra Police Station within the jurisdiction of Padra Police Station.
10. On minute appreciation of the entire evidence of the prosecution, as per the case of the complainant, Mukeshkumar Kanitbhai Parmar, he was standing at the Karjan ST Depot stand on 28-12-2008 and the incident occurred at around 11.30 am and he was forcibly taken on the motorcycle to the STD PCO at Moval- crossroads. Admittedly, it has come on record that the place is a bus stand and was teeming with persons, passengers and there were many Pan-Bidi and tea stalls and other carts with people selling toys and other things but no independent witnesses have been examined before the learned Trial Court. As per the evidence of the Prosecution Witness NO. 4 Dr. Ashaben Ramprakash Gupta, the complainant had come to the SSG Hospital on 30-12-2008 at 5.10 pm and, in the history he had named Suresh, Rahul, Umesh and 3-4 Page 14 of 17 Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Thu Aug 14 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Aug 15 23:10:20 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1122/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/08/2025 undefined other persons and has stated that he was assaulted with a belt, fists and stick but no marks of grievous injury were found on the body of the complainant. Moreover, the investigating officer Prosecution Witness No. 11 Virjibhai Jivabhai Katara has categorically stated that during investigation, the involvement of the others were not found and it was also not found that any caste-slurs were hurled by the accused at the time of the incident. It has also emerged on record that the place where the STD-PCO was at Muval Crossroads was a congested area and if the complainant was kept at the STD-PCO tied up for 5-6 hours, the other people would have witnessed the same, but no statements of any independent witnesses surrounding the STD-PCO has been recorded and brought on record before the learned trial Court. Moreover, the Investigating Officer did not investigate about the ownership of the STD
- PCO and the caste-certificate of the complainant is produced at Exhibit 15 but the Investigating Officer has not investigated about the caste certificate and hence the caste certificate is not proved. Even otherwise, the investigating officer Prosecution Witness No. 11 Virjibhai Jivabhai Katara has categorically stated that no caste-slurs were used by the accused at the time of the incident. As per the case of the prosecution, the incident has occurred on 28-12-2018 and the complaint has been filed on 30-12-2008, but there is no explanation for the delay in filing the Page 15 of 17 Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Thu Aug 14 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Aug 15 23:10:20 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1122/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/08/2025 undefined complaint. As per the case of the complainant, his father had come to the STD-PCO in the evening and had brought him back home but for reasons best known to the complainant, he had remained silent and if the complainant was assaulted for 6 to 7 hours and was kept tied up in the STD-PCO for 6 to 7 hours, his condition would have been such that he would have immediately informed his father who was a teacher about the incident. The learned Trial Court has discussed the entire evidence in detail.
11. In view of the settled position of law in the decisions of Chandrappa (supra), the learned trial Court has appreciated the entire evidence in proper perspective and there does not appear to be any infirmity and illegality in the impugned judgment and order of acquittal. The learned trial Court has appreciated all the evidence and this Court is of the considered opinion that the learned trial Court was completely justified in acquitting the accused of the charges leveled against them. The findings recorded by the learned Trial Court are absolutely just and proper and no illegality or infirmity has been committed by the learned trial Court and this Court is in complete agreement with the findings, ultimate conclusion and the resultant order of acquittal recorded by the learned Trial Court. This Court finds no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment and Page 16 of 17 Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Thu Aug 14 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Aug 15 23:10:20 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1122/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/08/2025 undefined order and the present appeal is devoid of merits and resultantly, the same is dismissed.
12. The impugned judgement and order of acquittal passed by learned 8th Additional District Judge & AdditionalSessions Judge, Vadodara in Special (ATRO) Case No. 29 of 2009 on 24.04.2012, is hereby confirmed.
13. Bail bond stands cancelled. Record and proceedings be sent back to the concerned Trial Court forthwith.
Sd/-
(S. V. PINTO,J) VVM Page 17 of 17 Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Thu Aug 14 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Aug 15 23:10:20 IST 2025