R/CR.A/2151/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/02/2026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2151 of 2010

FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SANJEEV J.THAKER

==========================================================

Approved for Reporting Yes No

==========================================================

STATE OF GUJARAT

Versus

CHHOTALAL SIYARAM KSHATRIYA & ORS.

==========================================================

Appearance:

MR YUVRAJ BRAHBHATT, APP for the Appellant - State

MR NISHITH P THAKKAR(2836) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No.

1,2,3

RULE SERVED for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 3

UNSERVED EXPIRED (N) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 4

==========================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SANJEEV J.THAKER

Date : 06/02/2026

ORAL JUDGMENT

1. Feeling aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the

judgment and order of acquittal dated 30.07.2010, passed by

the learned Special Judge (Atrocity), Court No.18, Ahmedabad

City, in Special (Atrocity) Case No.30 of 2009, for the

offences punishable under Sections 324, 294(b) and 114 of the

Indian Penal Code, Sections 3(1)(10) of the Scheduled Castes

and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and

Section 135(1) of the Bombay Police Act, the appellant –

State of Gujarat has preferred this appeal under Section 378

Page 1 of 18

R/CR.A/2151/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/02/2026

of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, “ the

Code”).

2. The prosecution case, as unfolded during the trial

before the lower Court, is that on 25.08.2008 at about 6:30

p.m., when the complainant – Girishbhai Laljibhai Makwana

and his cousin brother viz., Arvindbhai were sitting in the

compound of Vivekanand Mill, at that time, the wife of

complainant viz., Hansaben called the complainant and

informed that Chintu, son of Chhotalal Painter has thrown

water pouch on the wife of the complainant and also gave

filthy abuses. Therefore, the complainant and his cousin

brother went to their Chawl. At that time, the accused

persons came from the opposite side and gave filthy abuses.

When the complainant told them not to give abuses, the

accused persons got angry and accused No.2 – Chintu

inflicted knife blows on complainant’s left leg, by giving filthy

abuses, by uttering obscene words in public and intentionally

caused hurt to him. Thereafter, on hearing the shout, people

were gathered from the locality and rescued him from the

accused persons, therefore, the accused persons ran away

from there. Therefore, the complaint was filed against the

respondent/s-accused.

3. After investigation, sufficient prima facie evidence

Page 2 of 18

R/CR.A/2151/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/02/2026

was found against the accused person/s and therefore charge-

sheet was filed in the competent criminal Court for the

offences as alleged. Since the offence alleged against the

accused person/s was exclusively triable by the Court of

Sessions, the learned Magistrate committed the case to the

Sessions Court where it came to be registered as Special

(Atrocity) Case No.30 of 2009. The charge was framed against

the accused person/s. The accused pleaded not guilty and

came to be tried.

4. In order to bring home the charge, the prosecution

has examined 10 witnesses and also produced 7 documentary

evidence before the trial Court, which are described in the

impugned judgment.

5. After hearing both the parties and after analysis

of evidence adduced by the prosecution, the learned trial

Judge acquitted the accused for the offences for which they

were charged, by holding that the prosecution has failed to

prove the case beyond reasonable doubt.

6. Learned APP for the appellant – State has pointed

out the facts of the case and having taken this Court

through both, oral and documentary evidence, recorded before

the learned trial Court, would submit that the learned trial

Page 3 of 18

R/CR.A/2151/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/02/2026

Court has failed to appreciate the evidence in true sense and

perspective; and that the trial Court has committed error in

acquitting the accused. It is submitted that the learned trial

Court ought not to have given much emphasis to the

contradictions and/or omissions appearing in the evidence and

ought to have given weightage to the dots that connect the

accused with the offence in question. It is submitted that

the learned trial Court has erroneously come to the

conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove its case. It

is also submitted that the learned Judge ought to have seen

that the evidence produced on record is reliable and

believable and it was proved beyond reasonable doubt that

the accused had committed an offence in question. It is,

therefore, submitted that this Court may allow this appeal by

appreciating the evidence led before the learned trial Court.

7. As against that, learned advocate for the

respondent/s would support the impugned judgment passed by

the learned trial Court and has submitted that the learned

trial Court has not committed any error in acquitting the

accused. The trial Court has taken possible view as the

prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable

doubt. Therefore, it is prayed to dismiss the present appeal

by confirming the impugned judgment and order passed by

the learned trial Court.

Page 4 of 18

R/CR.A/2151/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/02/2026

8. In the aforesaid background, considering the oral

as well as documentary evidence on record, independently and

dispassionately and considering the impugned judgment and

order of the trial Court, the following aspects weighed with

the Court :

8.1 The prosecution has examined the complainant –

Girishbhai Laljibhai Makwana as P.W.1, vide Exh.9. Though

the complaint has been given by the complainant, the same

has been narrated by the aunt and at the time when the

aunt was giving details in the said complaint, the

complainant was unconscious and after he gained

consciousness, he has signed the said complaint. The fact

remains that the said aunt, who has given details in the

complaint, has not been examined by the prosecution. The

complainant has also not stated that said aunt – Kamlaben

had seen the alleged incident. Moreover, when the knife

which is alleged to have been used in the offence, was shown

to the complainant, he has stated that it is not the same

knife from which injuries were inflicted; and that the said

knife was a different knife.

8.2 The panch witness – Amarji Dhruvnarayan Shukla

has been examined as P.W.3, vide Exh.12. He has not

Page 5 of 18

R/CR.A/2151/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/02/2026

supported the case of the prosecution. He has stated that he

has only signed the panchnama produced vide Exh.26.

The panch of the place of offence has also not

supported the case of the prosecution and has only stated

that he has signed the said report as he is an illiterate and

whatever was written in the panchnama was not read over

to him. The said panch viz., Vinubhai Dalabhai Parmar has

been examined as P.W.2, vide Exh.11.

If the complaint produced vide Exh.10 is taken

into consideration, the said complaint also does not state that

what kind of abuses were given by the accused to the

complainant and the same has been improved upon while

giving deposition before the Court.

8.3 If the deposition of the PSI – Vijaysinh

Bharatsinh Rajput, who has been examined as P.W.4, vide

Exh.13, is taken into consideration, he, in his deposition, has

also stated that at the time when the complaint was taken,

the complainant has not stated as to what abuses were made

by the accused on the caste of the complainant.

The complainant’s wife - Hansaben Girishbhai

Makwana, who have been examined as P.W.7, vide Exh.20,

has stated that there were two or three boys, who were

drunk and the said fact was not stated while filing the

complaint before the PSI, who has been examined vide P.W.4.

Page 6 of 18

R/CR.A/2151/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/02/2026

Moreover, the complainant has stated that after he

was inflicted with the knife injury, he became unconscious,

whereas the wife of the complainant stated that the

complainant regained consciousness after two to three hours

after they reached the hospital. However, as per the doctor’s

certificate, it does not transpire that the complainant was

unconscious. The fact as per the evidence of the doctor –

Dr.Mittalbhai Bhaskarbhai Dave, who has been examined as

P.W.5, vide Exh.15, is that on 25.08.2008 at around 8:00

p.m., the patient had reached the hospital. If the certificate

of the doctor is taken into consideration, the patient was not

unconscious when he reached at the hospital. The said doctor,

who has been examined as P.W.5, has also stated that as

per his opinion, looking to the muddamal knife, it could be

possible that the injury could not be sustained by the said

knife and the injury could be if the complainant is hurt by a

sharp iron sheet/plate.

8.4 There are lot of contradictions as to the time of

offence. The complainant, in his complaint, has stated that

only the accused - Chintu i.e. accused No.2 had abused the

complainant of his caste and as per the deposition of the

wife of the complainant – P.W.7, she has stated that all the

accused had abused the complainant of his caste.

The fact remains that the complainant himself

Page 7 of 18

R/CR.A/2151/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/02/2026

states that the knife which is shown to him from the

muddamal item is not the knife by which he was assaulted.

The panch witnesses have also not supported the

case of the prosecution. The panch witnesses of recovery of

knife, vide Exh.12, stated that the panchnama was already

prepared, he only signed it, but he does not know the

content of it. Therefore, the recovery panchnama has not

been proved.

8.5 Hansaben Girishbhai Makwana – P.W.7, in her

deposition, has also stated that she does not recognize the

knife and she has only stated that she has seen the knife in

the hands of accused No.2 and she only saw her husband

fallen down and there were injuries on the legs.

8.6 Therefore, the prosecution has not proved the case

against the accused for the offence as alleged. Moreover, as

per the observations made by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the

case of Sajan Sakhariya Vs. State of Kerala and others

reported in AIR 2024 SC 4557 , every insult or intimidation

would not amount to an offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the

Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of

Atrocities) Act, 1989, unless such insult or intimidation is

started at a victim because he is a member of a particular

Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes. Therefore, from the

Page 8 of 18

R/CR.A/2151/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/02/2026

allegations made in the complaint, the prosecution has not

proved that the accused is guilty of an offence under the

Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of

Atrocities) Act, 1989.

8.7 Vide Exh.9, the complainant examined himself as

a prosecution witness. In his examination, he has stated that

when accused stabbed him, he got unconscious and he got

treated fort two days in hospital. There are contradictions in

the complaint vide Ehx.10 and testimony of the complainant

vide Exh.9. In his testimony, he stated that his aunt lodged

the complaint when he was not conscious. When he became

conscious, the complaint was read over to him and he signed

it. However, the prosecution has failed to examine the aunt

of the complainant, nor is the complainant saying that his

aunt has seen the incident with her own eyes.

8.8 The complainant’s cousin – Arvindbhai Somabhai

Waghela was examined as P.W.9, vide Exh.22. He stated that

during the quarrel, he only saw that blows were exchanged,

he did not see anything else. He stated that Girishbhai got

injured on his log during the quarrel, but he does not know

that what exactly struck him. After the quarrel, he went

home. Thus, his testimony does not establish that accused -

Chintoo caused injury to the complainant with a knife.

Page 9 of 18

R/CR.A/2151/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/02/2026

8.9 The trial Court, while considering the evidences in

detail, has observed that the prosecution has failed to prove

the case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. While

discussing the evidence in detail, the trial court has found

that the only allegation against the accused is of speaking

indecent words against the caste of the complainant. The

trial Court has gone into the evidence in detail and has

come to the conclusion that the accused are not guilty of the

alleged offence.

9. Further, learned APP is not in a position to show

any evidence to take a contrary view in the matter or that

the approach of the Court below is vitiated by some manifest

illegality or that the decision is perverse or that the Court

below has ignored the material evidence on record. In above

view of the matter, this Court is of the considered opinion

that the Court below was completely justified in passing

impugned judgment and order.

10. Considering the impugned judgment, the trial

Court has recorded that there was no direct evidence

connecting the accused with the incident and there are

contradictions in the depositions of the prosecution witnesses.

In absence of the direct evidence, it cannot be proved that

Page 10 of 18

R/CR.A/2151/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/02/2026

the accused are involved in the offence. Further, the motive

of the accused behind the incident is not established. The

trial Court has rightly considered all the evidence on record

and passed the impugned judgment. The trial Court has

rightly evaluated the facts and the evidence on record.

11. It is also a settled legal position that in acquittal

appeal, the appellate court is not required to re-write the

judgment or to give fresh reasoning, when the reasons

assigned by the Court below are found to be just and proper.

Such principle is down by the Apex Court in the case of

State of Karnataka Vs. Hemareddy , reported in AIR 1981 SC

1417 wherein it is held as under:

“… This court has observed in Girija

Nandini Devi V. Bigendra Nandini

Chaudhary (1967)1 SCR 93: (AIR 1967

SC 1124) that it is not the duty of the

appellate court when it agrees with the

view of the trial court on the evidence

to repeat the narration of the evidence

or to reiterate the reasons given by the

trial court expression of general

agreement with the reasons given by the

Court the decision of which is under

Page 11 of 18

R/CR.A/2151/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/02/2026

appeal, will ordinarily suffice.”

12. Thus, in case the appellate court agrees with the

reasons and the opinion given by the lower court, then the

discussion of evidence at length is not necessary.

13. In the case of Ram Kumar v. State of Haryana,

reported in AIR 1995 SC 280, Supreme Court has held as

under:

“The powers of the High Court in an

appeal from order of acquittal to

reassess the evidence and reach its own

conclusions under Sections 378 and 379,

Cr.P.C. are as extensive as in any

appeal against the order of conviction.

But as a rule of prudence, it is

desirable that the High Court should

give proper weight and consideration to

the view of the Trial Court with regard

to the credibility of the witness, the

presumption of innocence in favour of

the accused, the right of the accused to

the benefit of any doubt and the

slowness of appellate Court in justifying

Page 12 of 18

R/CR.A/2151/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/02/2026

a finding of fact arrived at by a Judge

who had the advantage of seeing the

witness. It is settled law that if the

main grounds on which the lower Court

has based its order acquitting the

accused are reasonable and plausible,

and the same cannot entirely and

effectively be dislodged or demolished,

the High Court should not disturb the

order of acquittal."

14. As observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the

case of Rajesh Singh & Others vs. State of Uttar Pradesh

reported in (2011) 11 SCC 444 and in the case of

Bhaiyamiyan Alias Jardar Khan and Another vs. State of

Madhya Pradesh reported in (2011) 6 SCC 394, while dealing

with the judgment of acquittal, unless reasoning by the trial

Court is found to be perverse, the acquittal cannot be upset.

It is further observed that High Court's interference in such

appeal in somewhat circumscribed and if the view taken by

the trial Court is possible on the evidence, the High Court

should stay its hands and not interfere in the matter in the

belief that if it had been the trial Court, it might have

taken a different view.

Page 13 of 18

R/CR.A/2151/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/02/2026

15. In the case of Chandrappa v. State of

Karnataka, reported in (2007) 4 SCC 415, the Hon’ble

Apex Court has observed as under:

“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, reappreciate and

reconsider the evidence upon which

the order of acquittal is founded.

(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

Page 14 of 18

R/CR.A/2151/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/02/2026

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.

Page 15 of 18

R/CR.A/2151/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/02/2026

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.”

16. The Hon’ble Apex Court, in a recent decision, in

the case of Constable 907 Surendra Singh and Another V/s

State of Uttarakhand reported in (2025) 5 SCC 433, has held

in paragraph 24 as under:

“24. It could thus be seen that it is a

settled legal position that the

interference with the finding of acquittal

recorded by the learned 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

Page 16 of 18

R/CR.A/2151/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/02/2026

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.”

17. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances

of the case and law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court

while considering the scope of appeal under Section 378 of

the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 no case is made out to

interfere with the impugned judgment and order of acquittal.

18. In view of above facts and circumstances of the

case, on my careful re-appreciation of the entire evidence, I

found that there is no infirmity or irregularity in the

findings of fact recorded by learned trial Court and under

the circumstances, the learned trial Court has rightly

acquitted the respondent/s - accused for the elaborate reasons

stated in the impugned judgment and I also endorse the

view/finding of the learned trial Court leading to the

acquittal.

19. In view of the above and for the reasons stated

above, the present Criminal Appeal fails to prove its case

and the same deserves to be dismissed and is dismissed,

Page 17 of 18

R/CR.A/2151/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/02/2026

accordingly. Record & Proceedings be remitted to the

concerned trial Court forthwith.

(SANJEEV J.THAKER,J)

M.H. DAVE

Page 18 of 18