Gujarat High Court
The State Of Gujarat vs Aacharya (Brahman) Prakashkumar ... on 8 October, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/833/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/10/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 833 of 2008
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE S.V. PINTO Sd/-
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
No
==========================================================
THE STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
AACHARYA (BRAHMAN) PRAKASHKUMAR NARANDAS & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS. MEGHA CHITALIYA, APP for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR.DARSHAN A. DAVE(7921) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1
UNSERVED EXPIRED (N) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE S.V. PINTO
Date : 08/10/2025
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 judgment and order of acquittal passed by learned Special Judge, Patan (hereinafter referred to as "the learned Trial Court") in Special (Atrocity) Case No. 30 of 2007 on 01-09-2007, whereby, the learned Trial Court has acquitted the respondent for the offence punishable under Sections 323, 324, 427 and 504 of the Penal Code, 1860 (hereafter referred to as "IPC" for short) and Section 3(1)(10) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as "Atrocities Page 1 of 15 Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Sat Nov 01 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 07 20:45:56 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/833/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/10/2025 undefined Act").
1.1 The respondent is hereinafter referred to as the accused as he stood 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 13-02-2001, at around 6.45 am, the complainant Bhavarsinh Jethsinh Chauhan was sitting on the platform at the threshold of a shop, near which, the accused had a tea cart, situated opposite the checkpoint near Patan Railway Station and as the complainant refused to have tea, the accused hurled abuses and took an iron pipe and assaulted the complainant on his head right hand and left hand. Witness Somaji Mansukhji Bhil intervened and the accused abused him and assaulted him with the pipe on his legs. The accused also hit the pipe on the plastic bag of the complainant and broke it and caused damage to the bag and the complainant filed a complaint at the Patan City Police Station under Sections 323, 324, 504 and 427 of the IPC and Section 3 (1)(x) of the Atrocity Act, which came to be registered at Patan City Police Station II-
C.R.No.30 of 2001 2.2 The accused was duly served with the summons and the accused appeared before the learned Trial Court, and it was verified whether the copies of all the necessary papers were provided to the accused as per the Page 2 of 15 Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Sat Nov 01 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 07 20:45:56 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/833/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/10/2025 undefined provisions of Section 207 of the Code. A charge at Exh. 2 was framed against the accused and the statements of the accused was recorded at Exh. 3, wherein, the accused denied all the contents of the charge and the entire evidence of the prosecution was taken on record. 2.3 The prosecution produced eight oral and seven documentary evidences to bring home the charge against the accused and after the learned Additional Public Prosecutor filed the closing pursis, the further statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was 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 his behalf and stated that a false case has been filed against him. 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 the accused from all the charges leveled against him.
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 Page 3 of 15 Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Sat Nov 01 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 07 20:45:56 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/833/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/10/2025 undefined 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 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 learned APP Ms. Megha Chitaliya for the Appellant - State and learned advocate Mr. Darshan A. Dave for respondent. Perused the impugned judgment and order of acquittal and have re-appreciated the entire evidence of the prosecution on record of the case.
5. Learned APP Ms. Megha Chitaliya for the Appellant-State 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. 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 Page 4 of 15 Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Sat Nov 01 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 07 20:45:56 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/833/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/10/2025 undefined 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 appeal of the appellant must be allowed.
6. Learned advocate learned advocate Mr. Darshan A Dave for the respondent submits that the judgment 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 Page 5 of 15 Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Sat Nov 01 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 07 20:45:56 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/833/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/10/2025 undefined 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, re-appreciate 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 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 Page 6 of 15 Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Sat Nov 01 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 07 20:45:56 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/833/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/10/2025 undefined in favour of the accused gets strengthened. There is no inhibition to re appreciate the evidence by the Appellate Court but if after re appreciation, 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, Prosecution Witness No. 1 - Vithalbhai Kalabhai Ram examined at exhibit 7 is the panch-witness of the panchnama of the place of offence, which is produced at exhibit 8. The witness has not supported the case of the prosecution and has been declared hostile. 9.1 Prosecution Witness No. 2 - Mangaji Chamundji examined at exhibit 9 is the panch witness of the arrest panchnama produced at exhibit 10. The witness has not supported the case of the prosecution and has been declared hostile.
9.2 Prosecution Witness No. 3 - Maheshbhai Somaji examined at exhibit 11 is an eye witness as per the case of the prosecution but the witness has not supported the case of the prosecution and has stated that he has a shop near the place of incident and he came to know that some incident had taken place. It was at around 5 in the morning and he was brushing his teeth and when he came out he saw that Prakash and Bhavarsinh were fighting with each other. He does not know why they Page 7 of 15 Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Sat Nov 01 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 07 20:45:56 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/833/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/10/2025 undefined had quarrelled and his father came and drove all of them from that place. The witness has not supported the case of the prosecution and has been declared hostile and in the cross examination has refused to state that he had seen the accused with an iron pipe in his hand assaulting the complainant. In the cross examination the witness has stated that his father had informed him about the incident.
9.3 Prosecution Witness No. 4 - Dr. Jaswantbhai Revabhai Yadav examined at exhibit 15 is the Medical Officer, who was on duty at General Hospital, Patan on 13-02-2011 when the complainant Bhavarsinh Jethsinh Rajput was brought for treatment at 7.05 am. The witness has stated that the complainant was admitted to the hospital and discharged on the next day and, in the history, he had stated that he was assaulted by a stick on 13-02-2001 at 5.30 am. On examination, the patient was conscious and there was tenderness on the posterior aspect of left forearm. There was a contusion with tenderness about 1 cm x 1 cm on the surface of the left shoulder, 2 cm x 0.5 cm abrasion on the posterior aspect of right hand and 1.5 cm x 0.5 cm into muscle deep CLW on left parietal region. The injuries were simple and were caused by hard and blunt substance and would recover within 10 days if no complications arose.
Page 8 of 15 Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Sat Nov 01 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 07 20:45:56 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/833/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/10/2025 undefined
At the same time Somaji Mansukhji Bhil was also brought for treatment and was treated as an OPD patient. In the history, he had stated that he had received assaulted injury by stick on 13-02-2001 at 5.30 am and on examination the patient was conscious and had a 2 cm x 1 cm abrasion on the anterior aspect of left knee, 0.5 cm x 1.5 cm abrasions on the posterior aspect of right middle finger, 0.5 cm x 0.5 cm abrasion on the posterior aspect of right ring finger. The injuries were simple in nature and caused by hard and blunt substance and would recover within 10 days if no complication occurs. The witness has produced the medical certificate of the complainant Bhavarsinh Jethsinh Rajput at exhibit 16 and the medical certificate of Somaji Mansukhji Bhil at exhibit 17.
During the cross examination by the learned advocate for the accused, the witness has admitted that the injuries were likely to be caused by a fall.
9.4 Prosecution Witness No. 5 - Somaji Mansukhji Bhil examined at exhibit 18 is the injured eyewitness to the incident. The witness has stated that the complainant was a retired Police Constable and the incident had occurred at 5.30 am while he was at his shop. The accused had a shop about four shops away and on the date of the incident, the accused had consumed liquor and was under the influence of liquor and he had quarreled with the complainant and he had intervened and Page 9 of 15 Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Sat Nov 01 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 07 20:45:56 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/833/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/10/2025 undefined saved the complainant. He was assaulted with one stick on his back and he had seen that the complainant was assaulted with the iron pipe on the head and on the ear. The police came and took the complainant to the hospital but he did not go to the hospital. He does not know whether the complainant had filed the complaint.
During the cross examination by the learned advocate for the accused, the witness has stated that the complainant had told him that he was sitting at the tea cart of the accused and the accused told him that if he did not want to have tea to go away from there and had slapped him and he had come to the shop of the witness.
9.5 Prosecution Witness No. 6 - Kishorsinh Jawansinh Chauhan examined at exhibit 19 is the ASI who has recorded the complaint of the complainant which is produced at Exhibit 20.
9.6 Prosecution Witness No. 7 - Dineshbhai Lallubhai examined at exhibit 21 is the PSO who has registered the complaint. 9.7 Prosecution Witness No. 8 - Mohanbhai Badarbhai examined at exhibit 23 is the ASI who has investigated the offence. The witness has narrated the procedure undertaken by him during investigation and in the cross examination he has stated that in the hospital when he went to record the statement of the complainant his clothes were stained with blood but he did not seize the clothes.
Page 10 of 15 Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Sat Nov 01 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 07 20:45:56 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/833/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/10/2025 undefined
The prosecution has produced the death certificate of the complainant at exhibit 12 and it states that the complainant Bhavarsinh Jethsinh Chauhan has expired on 7-9-2003.
10. On perusal of the complaint produced at Exhibit 20 there are no allegations that the accused had used any derogatory caste-slurs against the witness Somaji Mansukhji Bhil and the complaint does not state that any such caste slurs were used by the accused at the time of incident even though the offence under Section 3 (1)(10) of the Atrocity Act has been registered. The evidence of the complainant could not be brought on record as the complainant has expired and the investigation has been carried out by ASI Mohan and not by an officer of the rank of the Deputy Superintendent of Police.
11. Learned advocate for the Respondent No. 1 Mr. Darshan Dave has vehemently argued that as the investigation has not been done by an officer of the rank of the Deputy Superintendent of Police, the entire investigation is vitiated and the learned Trial Court has rightly acquitted the accused.
Page 11 of 15 Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Sat Nov 01 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 07 20:45:56 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/833/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/10/2025 undefined
11.1 At this juncture, it would be fit to reproduce Rule 7 of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe Rule,1995, "Rule 7. Investigating officer--
(1) An offence committed under the Act shall be investigated by a police officer not below the rank of a Deputy Superintendent of Police. The investigating officer shall be appointed by the State Government/Director General of Police/Superintendent of Police after taking into account his past experience, sense of ability and justice to perceive the implications of the case and investigate it along with right lines within the shortest possible time.
(2) The investigating officer so appointed under sub rule (1) shall complete the investigation on top priority within thirty days and submit the report to the Superintendent of Police who in turn will immediately forward the report to the Director General of Police of the State Government. (3) The Home Secretary and the Social Welfare Secretary to the State Government, Director of Prosecution, the officer in charge of prosecution and the Director General of Police shall review by the end of every quarter the position of all investigations done by the investigating officer." 11.2 The Apex Court in the State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Babbu Rathore & Another, reported in 2020 0 Supreme (SC) 43 in para 10, has observed as under
10. By virtue of its enabling power, it is the duty and responsibility of the State Government to issue notification conferring power of investigation of cases by notified police officer not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police. Rule 7 of the Rules 1995 provides rank of investigation officer to be not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police. An officer below that rank cannot act as investigating officer in holding investigation in reference to the offences committed under any provisions of the Act, 1989 but the question arose for consideration is that apart from the offences committed under the Act 1989, if the offence complained are both under the IPC and the offence enumerated in Section 3 of the Act, 1989 and the investigation being made by a competent police officer in accordance with the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure hereinafter being referred to as the "Code"), the offences under IPC can be quashed and set aside for non investigation of the offence under Section 3 of the Act, 1989 by a competent police officer. This question has been examined by a two Judge Bench of this Court in State of M.P. Vs. Chunnilal @ Chunni Singh 2009(12) SCC 649. Relevant para is as under:Page 12 of 15 Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Sat Nov 01 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 07 20:45:56 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/833/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/10/2025 undefined " By virtue of its enabling power it is the duty and responsibility of the State Government to issue a notification conferring power of investigation of cases by notified police officer not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police for different areas in the police districts.
Rule 7 of the Rules provided rank of investigating officer to be not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police. An officer below that rank cannot act as investigating officer.
The provisions in Section 9 of the Act, Rule 7 of the Rules and Section 4 of the Code when jointly read lead to an irresistible conclusion that the investigation of an offence under Section 3 of the Act by an officer not appointed in terms of Rule 7 is illegal and invalid. But when the offence complained are both under IPC and any of the offence enumerated in Section 3 of the Act the investigation which is being made by a competent police officer in accordance with the provisions of the Code cannot be quashed for noninvestigation of the offence under Section 3 of the Act by a competent police officer. In such a situation the proceedings shall proceed in an appropriate court for the offences punishable under IPC notwithstanding investigation and the chargesheet being not liable to be accepted only in respect of offence under Section 3 of the Act for taking cognizance of that offence."
(emphasis supplied) 11.3 In light of the above as the offence is registered under the IPC and the Atrocity Act, the proceedings can proceed for the offences punishable under sections of the IPC and the charge sheet cannot be accepted with regard to the offence under section 3 of the Atrocity Act.
As far as the other evidence is concerned, the only injured eyewitness, Prosecution Witness No. 5 Somaji Mansukhji Bhil examined at exhibit 18 has not fully supported the case of the prosecution and even though he had gone for treatment, he has stated that he did not go for treatment to the hospital. Moreover, there is a contradiction in the weapon used at the time of the incident and the witness has stated that he was Page 13 of 15 Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Sat Nov 01 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 07 20:45:56 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/833/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/10/2025 undefined assaulted by a stick whereas, the complaint produced at Exhibit 20 states that the complainant and the witness were assaulted with an iron pipe. The other eyewitness Prosecution Witness No. 3 Maheshbhai Somaji, who as per the case of the prosecution was an eyewitness to the incident but has not supported the case of the prosecution and has been declared hostile and on minute appreciation of the entire evidence of the prosecution, there is no iota of evidence that the accused had assaulted the complainant and witness Somaji Mansukhji Bhil with an iron pipe.
12. In view of the settled position of law in 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 order and the present appeal is devoid of merits and resultantly, the same is Page 14 of 15 Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Sat Nov 01 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 07 20:45:56 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/833/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/10/2025 undefined dismissed.
13. The impugned judgment and order of acquittal passed by learned Special Judge, Patan in Special (Atrocity) Case No. 30 of 2007 on 01-09- 2007, is hereby confirmed.
14. Bail bond stands cancelled. Record and proceedings be sent back to the concerned Trial Court forthwith.
Sd/-
(S. V. PINTO,J) vvm Page 15 of 15 Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Sat Nov 01 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 07 20:45:56 IST 2025