R/CR.A/110/2001 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/12/2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 110 of 2001 FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MAULIK J.SHELAT Sd/- and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. M. RAVAL Sd/- ========================================================== Approved for Reporting Yes No - Yes ========================================================== STATE OF GUJARAT Versus BHIMABHAI RUPABHAI & ORS. ========================================================== Appearance: MR. UTKARSH SHARMA, APP for the Appellant(s) No. 1 NOTICE SERVED for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3 ========================================================== CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MAULIK J.SHELAT and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. M. RAVAL Date : 12/12/2025 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. M. RAVAL) 1. The State by way of present appeal under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short “the Code”), has assailed the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the learned Special Judge, Atrocity Court, Ahmedabad (Rural) in Special Case No.55 of 1996, dated 16.12.2000. 2. The facts of the case of the prosecution in nutshell are that, on 17.02.1996, at about 8:00 hours in night, the complainant namely Devjibhai Tihabhai was traveling from his field to his residence for R/CR.A/110/2001 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/12/2025 supper, at that time the original accused – respondents herein were removing tube-light from the Electric Pole installed by the Panchayat, just opposite to the house of the complainant. At that time, the complainant asked them as to why the tube-light was removed, pursuant to which the accused persons abused the complainant by using abusive words and also stating that “this is not your father’s property”. At that time, accused Gambhu Devji was standing besides the electric pole, and accused Budha Valji and Bhima Rupa were on the electric pole. Both the accused who were on electric pole got down from the pole, out of them the accused Bhima Rupa inflicted knife blow injuries to the complainant, due to which complainant received injuries on thumb of his left hand and wrist of right hand. It is also the case of the prosecution that accused Bhima Rupa took away Rs.500/- from the pocket of the complainant. Pursuant to which, the FIR came to be registered vide I.C.R. No.23 of 1996 before Dhandhuka Police Station, for the offence punishable under Sections 324, 394 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code (for short “IPC”), Section 3(1)(x) of the Schedule Castes and the Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, (for short “Atrocity Act”) read with Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act (for short “B.P. Act”). 2.1. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet came to be filed before the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Dhandhuka, since the case is triable by the Sessions Court, the same committed before Session Court, Ahmedabad (Rural). The said case is numbered as Special Case No.55 of 1996. Charges came to be framed vide Exhibit 5 and the plea of accused were recorded vide Exhibit 6, 7 and 8 of the respective accused persons, they denied the charges and prayed for trial. Pursuant to which the prosecution examined 8 R/CR.A/110/2001 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/12/2025 witnesses and also relied on various documentary evidence to bring home the charges. After recording the statement under Section 313 of the Code, and hearing learned advocates for the respective parties, the learned Session Court acquitted the original accused – respondents herein. Hence, the present appeal. 3. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. Utkarsh Sharma for the State would submit that the learned Judge has not appreciated the deposition of the complainant which is supported by the medical evidence mainly for the injuries received by the complainant due to the injuries inflicted by the accused. The Trial Judge has failed to appreciate the fact that the knife by which the injuries were inflicted by the accused was identified by him, coupled with the fact that prosecution witness Ganeshbhai Tihabhai has also seen the accused person running away from the place of incident. The Trial Judge ought to have given the weightage to the Panchanama which clearly establishes that knife with the wooden handle and Rs.500/- came to be recovered at the instance of Bhima Rupa and thus complicity of the accused number No.1 is clearly established beyond reasonable doubt. Thus, it is argued that the present appeal requires interference at the hands of this Court, and the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the learned Special Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural) in Special Case No.55 of 1996, dated 16.12.2000, be quashed and set aside and the accused be punished from the charges framed against them. 4. Though served, none appears for the respondents. 5. At the outset, it would be profitable to refer the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Constable 907 Surendra Singh vs State Of Uttarakhand reported in (2025) 2 SCR 239 R/CR.A/110/2001 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/12/2025 wherein it is held that:- “11. Recently, in the case of Babu Sahebagouda Rudragoudar and others v. State of Karnataka, a Bench of this Court to which one of us was a Member (B.R. Gavai, J.) had an occasion to consider the legal position with regard to the scope of interference in an appeal against acquittal. It was observed thus: 38. First of all, we would like to reiterate the principles laid down by this Court governing the scope of interference by the High Court in an appeal filed by the State for challenging acquittal of the accused recorded by the trial court. 39. This Court in Rajesh Prasad v. State of Bihar [Rajesh Prasad v. State of Bihar, (2022) 3 SCC 471 : (2022) 2 SCC (Cri) 31] encapsulated the legal position covering the field after considering various earlier judgments and held as below : (SCC pp.482-83, para 29) 6 (2024) 8 SCC 149 29. After referring to a catena of judgments, this Court culled out the following general principles regarding the powers of the appellate court while dealing with an appeal against an order of acquittal in the following words : (Chandrappa case [Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka, (2007) 4 SCC 415 :(2007) 2 SCC (Cri) 325], SCC p.432, para 42) “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, re appreciate and reconsider the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded. Page 4 of 11 R/CR.A/110/2001 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/12/2025 (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 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 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. 40. Further, in H.D. Sundara v. State of Karnataka [H.D. Sundara v. State of Karnataka, (2023) 9 SCC 581: (2023) 3 SCC (Cri) 748] this Court summarised the principles governing the exercise of appellate jurisdiction while dealing with an appeal against acquittal under Section 378CrPC as follows : (SCC p. 584, para 8) R/CR.A/110/2001 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/12/2025 “8. … 8.1. The acquittal of the accused further strengthens the presumption of innocence; 8.2. The appellate court, while hearing an appeal against acquittal, is entitled to reappreciate the oral and documentary evidence; 8.3. The appellate court, while deciding an appeal against acquittal, after reappreciating the evidence, is required to consider whether the view taken by the trial court is a possible view which could have been taken on the basis of the evidence on record; 8.4. If the view taken is a possible view, the appellate court cannot overturn the order of acquittal on the ground that another view was also possible; and 8.5. The appellate court can interfere with the order of acquittal only if it comes to a finding that the only conclusion which can be recorded on the basis of the evidence on record was that the guilt of the accused was proved beyond a reasonable doubt and no other conclusion was possible.” 41. Thus, it is beyond the pale of doubt that the scope of interference by an appellate court for reversing the judgment of acquittal recorded by the trial court in favour of the accused has to be exercised within the four corners of the following principles: 41.1. That the judgment of acquittal suffers from patent perversity; 41.2. That the same is based on a misreading/omission to consider material evidence on record; and 41.3. That no two reasonable views are possible and only R/CR.A/110/2001 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/12/2025 the view consistent with the guilt of the accused is possible from the evidence available on record. 12. It could thus be seen that it is a settled legal position that the interference with the finding of acquittal recorded by the Ld. 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 possible and only the view consistent with the guilt of the accused is possible from the evidence available on record.” 6. Considering the aforesaid principles and reappreciation of the evidence placed before this Court, we are of the considered opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt for the following reasons: (i) The factum of the recovery at the instance of Bhima Rupa – accused No.1 – respondent No.1 herein is not proved in as much as as Panches at Exhibit 20, PW-3 namely Harichandrasinh Natvarsihn and at Exhibit 21, PW-4 namely Potatbhai Hamirbhai, have not supported the case of the prosecution. (ii) The prosecution has also not examined the investigating officer who has prepared said Panchnama to prove the contents of the Panchnama, so as to bring its case within four corners of Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, to prove that the knife as well as amount of Rs.500/- which alleged to have been taken away from the pocket of the complainant, were discovery / recovery at the instance of the accused. Page 7 of 11 R/CR.A/110/2001 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/12/2025 (iii) There are material contradiction in the deposition of the complainant, coupled with the fact that there are various contradictions shaking the credibility of the witness, more particularly with regard to the injuries inflicted upon him, accused person standing beneath the pole and the persons who were removing tube-light. More particularly read with the evidence of Danabhai Boghabhai – PW-2 at Exhibit 19 and that of PW-5 at Exhibit 22 namely Ganeshbhai Tihabhai. (iv) It is also required to be noted that PW-6 at Exhibit 23 namely Amrabhai Velabhai has also not able to prove as to what were contents of the Panchnama, since he has not read over the same, and it transpires that he has merely signed the Panchnama, coupled with the fact that the investigating officer who has prepared the Panchnama is not examined, thus, Panchnama of the place of the incident is also not proved. (v) Though there are material exaggeration but the manner in which incident has taken place, the nature of injury, part of body on which the injuries were sustained, the deposition of Danabhai Boghabhai read with deposition of Ganeshbhai Tihabhai, who merely saw the accused person running away from the place of offence would merely create suspicion against the accused persons, but merely suspicion would not amount to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt, since it is the duty of the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, and that the distance between ‘may be proved’ and ‘proved’ is to be travelled by the prosecution to bring home the charges. (vi) It is also required to be noted that the subsequent treatment R/CR.A/110/2001 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/12/2025 taken by the complainant for which Dr. Yatinbhia Jaykrushnabhai Desai - PW-8 has been examined at Exhibit 39 is not the author of the said document and has deposed merely based upon the documentary evidence available with the hospital. (vii) Further, on reading the entire judgment of the learned Trial Court which runs into 16 pages, it cannot be said that the Trial Court has committed grave error and in as much as the Trial Court has appreciated the documentary evidence as well as the oral evidence and has given cogent reasons to arrive at the findings of acquittal by pointing out grave discrepancy, exaggeration as well as material contradiction in the evidence of the so called eye witnesses and the injured person namely Devjibhai Tihabhai – complainant. (viii) It is also required to be noted that though the complaint was also under Section 324 of the IPC, the charge came to be framed only for Sections 394 read with 114 of the IPC, read with Section 3(1)(x) of the Atrocity Act, read with Section 135 of the B.P. Act. It is also required to be noted that not a single witness was examined to prove the breach of preventive notification to carry deadly arms punishable under Section 135 of the Gujarat Police Act. 7. Under the circumstances, when the deposition of the complainant is doubtful and there is no corroboration to the evidence of the complainant, coupled with the fact that there are material discrepancy as noted hereinabove, under the circumstances it cannot be said that the Trial Court has committed an error in acquitting the accused persons. It is also required to be noted that, it is not coming on record as to whether the investigation was carried out by an officer not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police, even R/CR.A/110/2001 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/12/2025 otherwise on reading of the charge-sheet, it transpires that PSI – K. U. Rayjaha has investigated the offence as shown in the column No.3 of the charge-sheet as witness No.10, however has not been examined. 8. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Chunnilal Alias Chunni Singh, reported in (2009) 12 SCC 649, wherein it is held in para 8 as under: “8. 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. …...” 9. However, in the present case, the accused are charged with the offence punishable under the provisions of the IPC and the Atrocity Act, under such circumstances, the trial conducted under the provisions of the Atrocity Act stands vitiated, however, for the reasons stated hereinabove, the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt for the offence punishable under Section 394 read with Section 114 of the IPC. Thus, after giving thoughtful consideration to the documentary as well as oral evidence and reappreciation of evidence by this Court, we do not find that the impugned judgment of acquittal suffers from perversity or that the same is based on misleading of material evidence on record. When two views are possible, the view which is in favour of the accused ought to have been adopted, by doing so the learned Trial Court has committed no error whatsoever. Under the circumstances, the acquittal order passed by the learned Trial Court does not called interference by the hands of this Court. Page 10 of 11 R/CR.A/110/2001 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/12/2025 10. Hence, the appeal being meritless, the same is dismissed. The bail bonds of respondents, if any, stand cancelled, surety stands discharged, R&P to be sent back to the Trial Court forthwith. Sd/- (MAULIK J.SHELAT,J) Sd/- (P. M. RAVAL, J) NITIN MAKWANA Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judges. Digitally signed by: NITIN INDRAVADAN MAKWANA(HCW0110), ENGLISH STENOGRAPHER GRADE I, at High Court of Gujarat on 19/12/2025 14:17:35