STATE OF GUJARATversusCHHOTALAL SIYARAM KSHATRIYA

     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


Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge.
Digitally signed by: MAHESHKUMAR HASMUKHLAL DAVE(HC00193), PRINCIPAL PRIVATE SECRETARY, at High Court of Gujarat on 06/02/2026 15:55:35




                                                         Page 18 of 18