R/CR.A/745/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/11/2025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 745 of 2003

FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ILESH J. VORA

and

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. T. VACHHANI

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

Approved for Reporting Yes No

✓

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

STATE OF GUJARAT

Versus

DINU PARBAT KARAMTA & ORS.

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

Appearance:

MR J K SHAH APP for the Appellant(s) No. 1

MR HRIDAY BUCH(2372) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3

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

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ILESH J. VORA

and

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. T. VACHHANI

Date : 20/11/2025

ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. T. VACHHANI)

1.Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and order of

acquittal dated 11/10/2002 passed by the learned Special Judge, Junagadh

in Atrocity Sessions Case No. 30 of 2000 for the offences punishable

under Sections 307, 504 and 34 of Indian Penal Code and under Sections

3(1)(x) of the Atrocities Act and under Section 135 of the Bombay Police

Act, the appellant – State has preferred the present appeal under Section

Page 1 of 16

R/CR.A/745/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/11/2025

378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“the Code” for short).

2.The brief facts leading to the filing of the present appeal are as

under:

2.1.The prosecution case in brief is that the complainant of this case

belongs to Scheduled Caste community and the accused are of other

community. The incident in question took place on 4-9-1999 at 6 PM in

the field of the complainant situated at village Lambora. The prosecution

case is that the accused of this case came with their cattle and allowed

them to graze in the field of the complainant, where there were standing

crops. That as the complainant asked them to drive away the cattle from

his field, the accused attacked him with weapons like iron pipe, axe and

Dhariya and caused fracture on the skull, legs and hands and thereby

committed the offence under Sections 307, 504 and 34 of Indian Penal

Code. The accused also uttered foul abuses relating to the caste of the

complainant and thereby insulted him in the name of his caste. The

accused have thus, committed the offences under Section 3(1)(x) and 3(2)

(v) of the Atrocities Act.

2.2.On these facts, the complaint was filed with Mangrol Police

Station. The Police after investigation charge-sheeted the accused for the

aforesaid offences. After investigation, chargesheet was filed before the

learned JMFC, Court. However, as the said Court lacks jurisdiction to try

offence under Section 307 IPC and Atrocity Act, the case was committed

to the Special Court and it was registered as Atrocity Sessions Case No.

30 of 2000 for trial. On conclusion of evidence on the part of the

prosecution, the Special Court put various incriminating circumstances

appearing in the evidence to the respondent-accused so as to obtain

explanation/answer as provided under Section 313 of the Code. In the

Page 2 of 16

R/CR.A/745/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/11/2025

further statement, the respondent-accused denied all incriminating

circumstances appearing against him as false and further stated that he is

innocent and a false case has been filed against him. After examining the

evidence, witness testimonies and submissions from both sides, the

learned Court below recorded the finding in favour of the respondent-

accused acquitting him of the charges levelled against them.

3. We have heard learned APP for the appellant – State and minutely

examined oral and documentary evidence adduced and produced before

the learned Sessions Court concerned.

4.Mr. J K Shah, learned APP appearing for the appellant – State

submits that the impugned order of acquittal is required to be interfered

with as the evidence produced on record proves the involvement of the

accused in the commission of crime in question. He has further submitted

that the injuries caused to the injured by the accused were on the head,

hands and on leg and thus the said injuries can be said to be serious in

nature and if the complainant who received the said injuries is not given

the treatment in time, then it would have caused his death. Thus, it is

alleged that the accused persons inflicted these injuries upon the

complainant with the intention of causing his death, using the weapons in

their possession, fully aware that such acts were imminently likely to

result in his death. It is therefore submitted that that all the accused

persons, acting in concert, attempted to cause the death of the

complainant and also abused and insulted him and thereby committed

offences punishable under Sections 307, 504, and 34 of the Indian Penal

Code.

4.1 It is further submitted that the complainant, who sustained injuries,

has been examined as Prosecution Witness No. 40, and his complaint is

Page 3 of 16

R/CR.A/745/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/11/2025

on record at Exhibit 41. The complainant has provided strong and reliable

evidence linking the accused with the injuries sustained by him. The

weapons recovered from the possession of the accused have also been

duly identified, and the complainant has stated that these very weapons

were used to cause his injuries. The testimony of the complainant is

corroborated by the medical evidence of Dr. Yogitaben Ravibhai Dholiya

(Exh.13), Dr. Girishkumar Kundariya (Exh.16), Dr. Gulabbhai J. Ganki

(Exh.33), and Dr. Roshanbhai Devshibhai Variya. Dr. Yogitaben

Dholiya, in her deposition at Exhibit 13 who has stated that when the

injured was brought to the Mangrol Primary Health Centre for treatment,

the medical history provided indicated that the injuries had been caused

in an assault. Similarly, Dr. Girishkumar Kundariya (Exh.16) has also

deposed to the same effect. However, the learned Special Court has

recorded acquittal and committed serious error.

4.2Learned APP has further submitted that insofar the offence under

the Atrocities Act are concerned, the prosecution has also proved the said

offence by leading substantial evidence and it has come on record to

show that the complainant belongs to schedule caste and the accused had

insulted the complainant in public domain and thus the said offence also

proved. However, the learned Special Court has not considered the said

evidence and therefore it is submitted to quash the finding of the Special

Court in this regard and to convict the accused for the said offence.

4.3Learned APP has further referred to the evidence of the other

material witnesses and submitted that from the evidence of the said

witnesses, the involvement of the accused in commission of the crime is

proved and therefore, this Court may interfere with the said finding and

record the conviction. He would therefore submit to allow this appeal.

Page 4 of 16

R/CR.A/745/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/11/2025

5.On the other hand, learned Advocate Mr.Buch appearing for the

respondents – accused has submitted that prosecution has failed to prove

the charges levelled against the respondents – accused as the evidence of

the complainant is doubtful and no plausible reasons are shown by the

prosecution as to why their evidence ought to have been believed since

they are the interested witnesses and thus their evidence are not reliable

and believable. He has further submitted that there are omissions and

contradictions in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and the same

cannot be ignored.

5.1It is submitted that merely because to convict the accused, the

entire evidence though does not surface the involvement of the accused;

cannot be said to have been believed and the learned Special Court has

rightly appreciated the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and thereby

come to the conclusion while acquitting the respondents – accused. He

has further submitted that insofar as the offence under the Atrocities Act

is concerned, no such witness has been examined by the prosecution to

believe that the accused insulted the complainant by uttering such words

in public domain and the investigation of the offence in question is not

conducted by the officer of the rank of the Dy. SP as the offence is

relatable to the Atrocities Act and therefore the entire investigation

vitiates. He would therefore submit to dismiss the present appeal while

confirming the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the learned

Special Court.

6.Heard the learned APP for the appellant – State and learned

Advocate appearing for the respondents – accused and perused the

deposition of witnesses, as also documentary evidence placed on record

as well as the order passed by the learned Sessions Court.

Page 5 of 16

R/CR.A/745/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/11/2025

7.At the outset, evidence of PW 12 – Bhikha Alabhai, complainant

examined at Exh.40 is required to be seen. The said witness has deposed

in his testimony about the occurrence of the incident. He has deposed in

his testimony that incident in question was taken place due to grazing of

the animals by the accused side. This Witness has deposed in his

testimony that accused had kept his animals in his field and when the

witnesses reached there, they started giving foul abuses and on being

asked to stop them and to remove their animal from the field, accused –

Batuk gave axe blow on his head while accused – Dinu Parbat gave

Dhariya blow on the left hand elbow whereas accused – Rame gave pipe

blow on his leg. This Witness has further deposed that they have also

slapped the complainant and thereafter his right leg was broken and he

became unconscious. This Witness has further identified the weapons

with which the injuries were caused. This Witness has been cross-

examined by the other side however nothing showing the involvement of

the accused in commission of the crime of meted out the harassment at

the hands of the accused has come on record from the evidence of this

witness. However, during the cross-examination, certain omission and

contradictions in relation to the place of incident, assailants, and with

regard to consciousness of the complainant as well as the presence of the

family members of the complainant in consonance with the other

evidence surfaced such as Medical Officer and therefore the evidence of

the complainant comes under the shadow of doubt.

8.PW No.13 – Prabhaben Dhirubhai, sister of the complainant has

been examined at Exh.42 and has deposed in her testimony that on the

day of the incident, she and her family members were at home, and at

around 5:30 p.m., when they were returning to Lambora, her nephew

Mithun came and informed her that his father had been assaulted by Dinu

Parbat, Batuk Parbat, and Ramesh Rama. Thereupon, she along with her

Page 6 of 16

R/CR.A/745/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/11/2025

family members went near the village crematorium, where they found her

brother lying in a severely injured and bleeding condition. She further

stated that she had seen the accused persons leaving the spot carrying

weapons such as an axe, an iron pipe, and a dhariya (sharp-edged

weapon). According to the witness, these weapons correspond to

muddamal (seized weapon) items Nos. 3, 4, and 5. This Witness has been

cross-examined by the prosecution where she has denied the suggestion

that her nephew Mithun had told her that, while he was on his way to

Virpur he was calling his father and his father lying injured in bleeding

condition near the crematorium at Charithan. She has also conceded that

Mithun did not disclose the names of the assailants. Likewise, she has

denied the suggestion that she did not see the accused persons carrying an

axe, pipe, or dhariya when she reached the place of occurrence. She has

further denied that she did not disclose any such facts before the police.

9.Prosecution Witness No.43, Shri Dhirubhai Hajabhai has been

examined at Exh.43. In his deposition, he has stated that on the day of the

incident, Mithun came and informed him that his father had been

assaulted by Dinu Parbat, Batuk Parbat, and others of Virpur and

therefore, he proceeded to the place of occurrence and, upon reaching,

found Bhikhabhai lying in a bleeding condition. When he returned to the

place of occurrence, his wife Prabha, his brother-in-law-Gordhanbhai and

in-laws Karmanben had come. This Witness has stated that Bhikhabhai

had told him that injuries were caused by Dinu Parbat, Batuk Parbat and

witness has been unable to identify the weapons when he was asked about

the same.

10.Prosecution Witness No.18 – Karmanben Aalabhai mother of the

complainant has been examined at Exh.52 and she has deposed in her

testimony that on the day of incident her grandson Mithun who was died

Page 7 of 16

R/CR.A/745/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/11/2025

as on today came and informed that his father was beaten up on the road.

She therefore went to the place of incident and found her son Bhimo

lying on the road with injuries on the leg, hand and head and at that time

police came and took him to the Mangrol Dispensary. This Witness has

been cross-examined by the other side and denied the suggestions that

Mithun had not returned to home after the incident and accused did not

beat.

11.Prosecution Witness No.16–Dharmendrasinh Vaghela, Police

Witness has been examined at Exh.47 and said witness has deposed in his

testimony that on the day of incident he was present at Mangrol Police

Station and having come to know about the incident, he went to the place

of incident. This Witness has deposed in his testimony that accused–Dinu

Parbat came to the Police Station and informed that Bhikha Alla assaulted

him and in the said incident Bhikha Alla received injuries and he was

lying at the spot. This Witness has instructed the PSO to lodge the

complainant. This Witness has deposed in his testimony about the

method and manner in which the investigation is conducted.

12.From the evidence of the aforesaid witnesses, it appears that they

have deposed as to the method and manner in which the incident took

place.

13.Prosecution Witness No.17 – V S Parmar, Police Witness has been

examined at Exh.51 and he has admitted in the cross-examination that

since there are contradictions in the complaint with regard to incident in

question, he was required to take further statement of the complainant and

therefore he went to for that purpose. This Witness has been cross-

examined by the other side where-from the contradictions and omissions

in the complaint, further statement of the complaint has come on record.

Page 8 of 16

R/CR.A/745/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/11/2025

14.All the Panch witnesses to the Panchnama drawn by the IO have

turned hostile and has not supported the case of prosecution.

15.As per the evidence of PW No.1-Dr. Yogita Shah (Exh.13), the

injury sustained on the complainant’s head was of a serious nature, and if

timely medical treatment had not been provided, such injury could have

resulted in death. However, during cross-examination, the said medical

witness altered her opinion and admitted that unless the wound is fully

explored, no definite medical opinion can be expressed regarding the

nature or seriousness of the injury. Furthermore, neither Dr. Kunadiya

(Exh.16) nor Dr. Roshanbhai Hariya (Exh.34) has provided any medical

opinion concerning the seriousness of the head injury sustained by the

complainant. Therefore, the fractures on the complainant’s hands and legs

are injuries other than those inflicted on vital parts of the body. Hence,

the medical evidence does not conclusively establish that the injuries on

the complainant were inflicted on vital parts of the body, nor does it

establish that the injuries were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature

to cause death if immediate treatment had not been administered. No

medical witness has given a clear opinion that the injuries were of such a

nature as would ordinarily result in the death of any person. For proving

an offence under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, the essential

ingredients of Section 300 IPC must be satisfied, meaning thereby; the

prosecution has to prove that the accused caused an injury on a vital part

of the victim’s body with the intention and knowledge that such injury

was likely to cause death or could result in death. Such essential

ingredients are not supported by the medical evidence in the case on

hand.

16. It appears from the record that the evidence of the complainant

and the other evidence produced by the prosecution appears to be

Page 9 of 16

R/CR.A/745/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/11/2025

doubtful. It also appears that the complainant has not disclosed the true

facts relating to the incident, the place of occurrence, and the nature of

the injuries. Not only this, but when the statements of the witnesses are

examined with the complainant’s version, it appears that the remaining

witnesses being the complainant’s sister, brother-in-law, and maternal

relative are the interested witnesses due to their close relationship with

the complainant. Furthermore, if the complainant’s statement regarding

the place of the incident is examined, in the complaint lodged before the

police he initially stated that at the time of the incident, the accused were

grazing their buffaloes in the “Chariyan” adjoining Teja’s field; the

buffaloes had strayed into his field, and when he went to drive them out,

the accused arrived there. When he reprimanded them, the accused

abused him, took him into the Chariyan, and assaulted him there.

However, in his deposition before the Court, the complainant stated that

the accused had entered his field with their cattle, and when he told them

to drive the cattle out, the accused jointly assaulted him in his own field,

causing injuries on his head and limbs. Thereafter, the accused allegedly

dragged him to their field and fractured his hands and legs. None of these

facts were ever stated by the complainant in his police complaint or in his

previous statement. Not only that, but in his further statement given to the

police, he made further improvements and additions, stating that he was

carrying a stick at the time of the incident, that the accused snatched the

stick from him, that he himself was the first to be attacked, and that he

too had struck the accused. However, during the cross-examination, he

denied having given such a further statement or that the incident occurred

in the manner recorded therein. He has denied the suggestions of having

made such statement. Moreover, from the evidence produced during the

investigation, it also emerges that the first person to become aware of the

incident was the complainant’s son, Mithun. When the complainant was

lying injured on the outskirts of the village, near the boundary of the

Page 10 of 16

R/CR.A/745/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/11/2025

field, Mithun was passing on his way to call him. He saw the complainant

in an injured condition, and the complainant told him that he had been

assaulted by some unknown persons. Mithun thereafter went home and

informed the family about the incident. However, during cross-

examination, the complainant denied having spoken to his son Mithun,

and also denied that Mithun was the first person to meet him after the

incident. This denial is contradicted by all the remaining witnesses—

Pramaben, Dhirubhai, and Karmaben—each of whom has stated that after

the incident, the complainant first spoke to Mithun. In addition to this, the

contradictions appearing in the complainant’s deposition have also been

proved through the testimonies of the Investigating Officer and the

medical witnesses. There are also inconsistencies regarding the nature of

injuries allegedly caused by the accused. The complainant has failed to

clearly specify in his testimony as to what weapon the accused used and

on which part of his body the blows were inflicted. In his police

complaint, in his further statement, and in his deposition before the Court,

he has narrated different and inconsistent versions of the incident, the

place of occurrence, and the injuries sustained.

17.Thus, the evidence advanced by the complainant before the Court

appears to be doubtful. The contradictions between his deposition, his

police statements, and the initial complaint are serious and inconsistent.

Furthermore, his testimony does not corroborate with the medical

evidence or the medical witnesses. There is no doubt that the testimony

of an injured witness is generally considered the best and most reliable

evidence. However, such evidence must be consistent, trustworthy, and

credible and in absence of corroboration from other witnesses, the Court

cannot rely upon such evidence.

18.Insofar as the charge of offence punishable under Section 307 of

Page 11 of 16

R/CR.A/745/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/11/2025

the IPC is concerned, admittedly though evidence has been produced by

the prosecution showing the involvement of the accused in commission of

the crime; but the prosecution has measurably failed to prove the said fact

in view of the contradictions and omissions as discussed in the foregoing

paragraphs. Since the prosecution has failed to establish the said fact, the

findings arrived at by the learned Special Court acquitting the accused for

the offence punishable under Section 307 of the IPC cannot be interfered

with. It is the sole duty of the prosecution to prove its case to the

touchstone of the evidence led by it and here the evidence so led by the

prosecution is not sufficient to prove the charges levelled against accused

beyond all reasonable doubt. In the present case, neither the intention

of the accused to cause the death of the complainant at the place and time

of the incident, nor the intention or knowledge to inflict such injuries as

were likely to cause death, stands proved from the evidence on record. At

the most, from the evidence produced by the complainant before the

Court, it is established that injuries were found on the body of the

complainant; however it has not been proved that the accused, or any one

of them, had inflicted the injuries which were found on the body of

complainant. Even if, for the sake of assumption, it is accepted that the

injuries found on the complainant were caused by the accused, on the

basis of the evaluation of the evidence as aforesaid, the charge under

Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code cannot be sustained since to prove

the said charge, the prosecution has to establish the intention and

knowledge of the accused regarding the nature of the injuries and likely

consequence. From the evidence emerging from the record, the

prosecution has failed to prove such intention and knowledge.

19.Now, insofar as the offence punishable under the Atrocities Act is

concerned, this Court is in complete agreement with the findings arrived

at by the learned Special Court in this regard recording that prosecution

Page 12 of 16

R/CR.A/745/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/11/2025

has failed to prove the said offence as the complainant has failed to

produce any such certificate showing that he belongs to the schedule

caste and merely saying that he belongs to schedule caste is not sufficient

and thus the first and foremost requirement is not satisfied to attract the

ingredients of the offence punishable under the Atrocities Act. Secondly,

the prosecution has also failed to establish that even if for the sake of

convenience and belief it is to be believed that complainant belongs to

schedule caste; then investigation of such offence is required to be

conducted by the officer not below the rank of Dy.SP which in the

present case is lacking and therefore, on aforesaid count the prosecution

has measurably failed to prove that offence under the Atrocities Act is

proved and the learned Special Court has rightly recorded the findings

recording acquittal of the respondents – accused.

20.At this stage, this Court may refer to the decision of the Hon’ble

Apex Court in the case of Rajesh Prasad v. State of Bihar and Another

[(2022) 3 SCC 471] encapsulated the legal position covering the field

after considering various earlier judgments and held as below: -

“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 acquittal in the following words:

(Chandrappa case [Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka,

(2007) 4 SCC 415]

“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

Page 13 of 16

R/CR.A/745/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/11/2025

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 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

Page 14 of 16

R/CR.A/745/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/11/2025

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.”

21.In the case of H.D. Sundara & Ors. v. State of Karnataka [(2023)

9 SCC 581] the Hon’ble Apex Court has summarized the principles

governing the exercise of appellate jurisdiction while dealing with an

appeal against acquittal under Section 378 of CrPC as follows: -

“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

Page 15 of 16

R/CR.A/745/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/11/2025

of the accused was proved beyond a reasonable doubt and no other

conclusion was possible.”

22.In light of the above legal position and for the reasons recorded in

the foregoing paragraphs, coupled with the fact that the case of the

prosecution does not get support from the evidence recorded by the

learned Special Court, the present appeal fails and is accordingly

dismissed. Records and Proceedings, if any, be remitted to the Court

concerned forthwith.

(ILESH J. VORA,J)

(R. T. VACHHANI, J)

sompura

Page 16 of 16