Gujarat High Court
The State Of Gujarat vs Hemaben Wife Of Ranjitsinh Ramsinh on 15 September, 2025
Author: Umesh A. Trivedi
Bench: Umesh A. Trivedi
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/353/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/09/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 353 of 2008
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH A. TRIVEDI Sd/-
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
✓
==========================================================
THE STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
HEMABEN WIFE OF RANJITSINH RAMSINH & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR. BHARGAV PANDYA, ADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the
Appellant(s) No. 1
MUNJAAL M BHATT(8283) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1,2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH A. TRIVEDI
Date : 15/09/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
[1] This appeal is filed under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'the Code') by the State of Gujarat challenging the judgment and order of acquittal recorded by the learned Special Judge (Atrocity), Gandhinagar dated 24.04.2007, whereby the respondents - accused have come to be acquitted of the charges levelled against them. [2] As such, along with accused Nos. 2 and 3, one Ranjitsinh Ramsinh Chauhan, who happens to be the Page 1 of 11 Uploaded by LALJI AMRUTBHAI DESAI(HC01558) on Tue Sep 16 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 17 01:49:10 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/353/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/09/2025 undefined husband of respondent No.1 herein and son of respondent No.3 herein, also prosecuted in the same trial and convicted for an offence under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC'), whereas for other offences under Sections 324, 504, 506 and 114 of 'IPC' as also under Section 3 (1) (x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short 'the Act, 1989'), all the accused have come to be acquitted.
[3] So far as present appeal is concerned, it is filed only against the present respondents and not against the original accused No. 1, though he is also charged for the offences as stated hereinabove.
[4] As per the case of the prosecution, on 21.04.2006 when first informant - Manjulaben Devjibhai Maganbhai, who is staying in Block No.70/3 of Sector 28 and carrying out business of selling the old furnitures, present in the house along with her husband and their employee, Rajesh Kalpanath, at that time, original accused No.1 i.e. Ranjitsinh Ramsinh was parking his truck and motorcycle, time and again, just opposite the house of the first informant causing Page 2 of 11 Uploaded by LALJI AMRUTBHAI DESAI(HC01558) on Tue Sep 16 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 17 01:49:10 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/353/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/09/2025 undefined hurdle for the ingress and outgress of her house. Therefore, accused No.1 was requested not to park in a manner which may create hurdle for them, to which accused No.1 got enraged and started abusing first informant. At that time, present respondents - accused, wife and mother of accused No.1- Ranjitsinh, also came there. Accused No.1 and respondent No.1 herein being wife of accused No.1- Ranjitsinh, started giving kick and fist blows to the first informant, whereas respondent No. 2 herein i.e. mother of accused No.1 alleged to have caught hold of first informant. Because of the assault by accused No.1, she received various injuries. In the very same incident, when her employee Rajesh Kalpanath intervened, he was also assaulted by accused No.1 and had bitten on left hand shoulder. Accused No.1 is further alleged to have uttered certain words, by which, first informant is insulted of her caste within a public view. However, since public started gathering there, accused had moved themselves from the place.
[5] On the basis of such First Information Report, an investigation came to be carried out by Local Police and having Page 3 of 11 Uploaded by LALJI AMRUTBHAI DESAI(HC01558) on Tue Sep 16 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 17 01:49:10 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/353/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/09/2025 undefined found the sufficient evidence against the accused, they were charge-sheeted before the Court of Magistrate. Since the trial against the accused is exclusively triable by the Special Court i.e. Court of Sessions, the case came to be committed to it by the learned Magistrate.
[6] After ensuring the compliance of the provisions of 'the Code', charge came to be framed against the accused. To prove the case against the accused, prosecution examined total 7 witnesses and produced and proved nearly 6 documents on record. On appreciation of the evidence led before the Trial Court and on hearing the learned APP as also learned advocate for the accused, as stated hereinabove, original accused No.1 came to be acquitted so far as offence under Sections 324, 504, 506 and 114 of 'IPC' as also under Section 3(1) (x) of 'the Act, 1989', whereas he came to be convicted for an offence under Section 323 of 'IPC' and granted benefit of probation under the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 (for short 'the Act, 1958'). So far as present respondents - accused are concerned, both of them have come to be acquitted of the charges levelled against them. Page 4 of 11 Uploaded by LALJI AMRUTBHAI DESAI(HC01558) on Tue Sep 16 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 17 01:49:10 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/353/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/09/2025 undefined [7] Being aggrieved by the judgment and order of acquittal in respect of only these respondents are concerned, State has preferred an appeal, whereas there is no appeal preferred against the original accused No.1 for rest of the offences alleged against him, despite his acquittal is recorded. As such, State cannot discriminate, if at all there is any evidence found so as to prefer an acquittal appeal, in between the accused. At any rate, this appeal is preferred only against the original accused Nos. 2 and 3, who are respondent Nos. 1 and 2 herein.
[8] Heard Mr. Bhargav Pandya, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the appellant - State. He took me through the impugned judgment and order of acquittal as also the evidence led before the Court. He has submitted that evidence of the first informant is supported by other injured witness i.e. employee of first informant and it is corroborated by the medical evidence so far as both the injured are concerned and, therefore, when there is other material evidence on record of other sections of Penal Code, the learned Judge could not have acquitted respondents - accused or even accused No.1. He has further submitted that so far as Page 5 of 11 Uploaded by LALJI AMRUTBHAI DESAI(HC01558) on Tue Sep 16 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 17 01:49:10 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/353/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/09/2025 undefined contradiction mentioned by the learned Judge in the judgment in respect of what is stated in the first information report and deposition before the Court about assaulting or abetting the commission of an offence by accused No.1 at the instance of respondents - accused herein, unless it is brought in evidence, learned Judge could not have referred the same as a contradiction, even if first information report is exhibited. He has further submitted that the evidence of both the injured witnesses i.e. Manjulaben as also Rajesh are consistent and corroborated by medical evidence. As coming out from the evidence of both of them, respondents - accused are alleged to have caught hold of the first informant Manjulaben, facilitating the commission of crime by original accused No.1. Therefore, according to his submission, if not for independent offence of 'IPC', they could have been convicted for the offence of abetment along with the original accused No.1. Therefore, he requested that this appeal is required to be allowed and they should be accordingly punished.
[9] As against that, Ms. Khushi Mehta, learned advocate for Mr. Munjaal Bhatt, learned advocate for the respondents - accused vehemently submitted that the Page 6 of 11 Uploaded by LALJI AMRUTBHAI DESAI(HC01558) on Tue Sep 16 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 17 01:49:10 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/353/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/09/2025 undefined evidence led before the Court is inconsistent and insufficient to convict the accused independently even for an offence of abetment. She has further submitted that apparent inconsistent evidence, so far as involvement of original accused No.2 i.e. respondent No.1 herein, in the first information report as also evidence of the first informant creates doubt about the genuineness of the allegation made by the first informant against both the respondents - accused. She has further submitted that since they have been acquitted by the learned Judge by assigning good reasons and State has not challenged the acquittal of original accused No.1, so far as offences alleged against all of them except under Section 323 of 'IPC' proved against accused No.1, State could not have discriminated the respondents - accused, who are lady accused. She has further submitted that their innocence is further strengthened by the order of acquittal recorded by the learned Judge. It is further submitted that even if two views are possible of the evidence led before the Court, the view which is favourable to the accused is to be accepted after about 19 years and half. Since both the lady accused have settled in their life, it should not be interfered with, that too, Page 7 of 11 Uploaded by LALJI AMRUTBHAI DESAI(HC01558) on Tue Sep 16 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 17 01:49:10 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/353/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/09/2025 undefined for petty offence of abetment, if at all it is proved. Therefore, she has submitted that this Court may not entertain the present appeal.
[10] Having heard the learned APP for the appellant - State as also learned advocate for the respondents - accused, let me examine whether appeal requires any consideration or not?
[11] Since evidence of the first informant and injured witness is elaborately discussed by the learned Judge in his judgment, no deeper and further scrutiny is required even on re-appreciation of evidence. Even presuming that evidence of first informant alleging catching hold of her by both the respondents - accused is believed to be true, which is supported by even other injured witness - Rajesh Kalpanath, then also they can be said to have committed an offence abetting commission of an offence under Section 323 of 'IPC', for which accused No.1, though convicted, has been granted benefit of probation under the provision of 'the Act, 1958'. Therefore, even if I have to interfere in this judgment and order of acquittal, they being lady accused, they are on far Page 8 of 11 Uploaded by LALJI AMRUTBHAI DESAI(HC01558) on Tue Sep 16 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 17 01:49:10 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/353/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/09/2025 undefined better footing than even original accused No.1, who is granted benefit of probation for an offence under Section 323 of 'IPC', this benefit can also be granted to the abettor. [12] However, as evidence has come on record, respondent No.2 -accused, mother-in-law, appears to be though denied, staying away in a nearby area and not with original accused No.1 in the same block, which is alleged. Not only that, the premises where original accused Nos.1 and 2 are staying, it is government accommodation, which is to be granted to the government employees. As evidence has come on record, neither of the accused is government employee so as to have that premises. Even owner of the premises is also not examined by the prosecution to prove that accused Nos.1 and 2 are staying in the same block. Be that as it may, without entering deep into it, from the evidence of panch- witness and panchnama drawn of the site, there is no sufficient space where even truck can be parked so as to create hurdle for the said ingress or outgress of the first informant. Therefore, motive alleged against the accused for the cause for which offence took place appears to be missing. Page 9 of 11 Uploaded by LALJI AMRUTBHAI DESAI(HC01558) on Tue Sep 16 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 17 01:49:10 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/353/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/09/2025 undefined [13] So far as offence under 'the Act, 1989' is concerned, the learned Judge has assigned ample reasons why it cannot be invoked. Be that as it may, first informant has, in her evidence, not uttered a single word alleging that any of the respondents - accused have committed any offence under 'the Act, 1989'. Therefore, keeping that offence outside the consideration, the learned Judge has assigned good reasons why other offences alleged under the 'IPC' are not made out. Therefore, even if an offence of abetment is presumed to have been committed by the respondents - accused, that would be an offence of abetment of an offence under Section 323 of 'IPC' only, for which, even convicted accused is granted benefit of probation under 'the Act, 1958'. Even if, I have to interfere with the judgment and order of acquittal and convict them for the offence of abetment of committing an offence under Section 323 of 'IPC' when accused No.1 is granted probation under 'the Act, 1958', these two lady accused are also entitled for the same. But, keeping in mind the time lag in between the offence committed and the present status of the respondents - accused, after about 19 and half years, I do not wish to interfere in this judgment and order of acquittal, more Page 10 of 11 Uploaded by LALJI AMRUTBHAI DESAI(HC01558) on Tue Sep 16 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 17 01:49:10 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/353/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/09/2025 undefined particularly, when an endorsement on the cause-list shows that despite notice issued to the first informant, she is unserved as expired. The death certificate is also attached as mentioned in the cause list.
[14] Therefore, even if two views of the case is possible, the view which is favourable to the accused and taken by the learned Judge assigning good reasons, has to be accepted. Even if it is not to be accepted, then also both of them should be granted probation as the original accused No.1 is granted probation thereof.
[15] In that view of that matter, I don't see any reason to interfere with the judgment and order of acquittal recorded by the learned Judge. Hence, this appeal is dismissed. Record and proceedings, if any, to be sent back to the concerned Trial Court.
(UMESH A. TRIVEDI, J) Lalji Desai Page 11 of 11 Uploaded by LALJI AMRUTBHAI DESAI(HC01558) on Tue Sep 16 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 17 01:49:10 IST 2025