Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Ushaben Manubhai Thakker on 9 March, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1975/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/03/2026
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1975 of 2010
==========================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
USHABEN MANUBHAI THAKKER & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS MEGHA CHITALIYA, APP for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR VIRAL M PANDYA(5257) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3,4
MS DIPMALA S DESAI(6596) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 5
RULE SERVED for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 2,3,4
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SANJEEV J.THAKER
Date : 09/03/2026
JUDGMENT
1. Feeling aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the
judgment and order of acquittal dated 10.08.2010 passed by
the learned Special Judge, Court No.17, City Sessions Court,
Ahmedabad, in Atrocity Criminal Case No.20 of 2008, for the
offences punishable under Sections 504, 506(2), 294(b) and
114 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(1)(x) of the
Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, the appellant – State of Gujarat has preferred
this appeal under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 (for short, “the Code”).
2. The prosecution case, as unfolded during the trial
before the Sessions Court, is that on 10.10.2007, the accused
– Ushaben Manubhai Thakkar, who was residing opposite
Page 1 of 17
Uploaded by U. SRILATHA(HC00185) on Tue Mar 10 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Mar 10 22:18:58 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1975/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/03/2026
undefined
side of the complainant’s house ties one iron wire between
her house and the house of the complainant on the passage,
on the said wire, the accused hanged dirty clothes at the
side of complainant’s house and as the water was dropping.
At about 3:00 O’clock in the noon, the husband of the
complainant told the accused to take away the clothes.
Therefore, the accused got angry and gave filthy abuses. The
accused by uttering such words, insulted the complainant and
her husband. Thereafter, on hearing the same, their
neighbours – Minbane Himmatbhai, Kalpanaben Kiritbhai,
Babyben Sharma and Minaben Mistry and others gathered
and persuaded them not to quarrel. At that time, Mayurbhai
Manubhai Thakkar and Dimple Mayurbhai Thakkar by taking
side of accused Nos.1 and 2 threatened the complainant could
not lodge the complaint on the day on incident. Therefore,
the complaint was filed against the respondent/s-accused on
16.10.2007 before the concerned police station.
3. After investigation, sufficient prima facie evidence
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 Atrocity
Page 2 of 17
Uploaded by U. SRILATHA(HC00185) on Tue Mar 10 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Mar 10 22:18:58 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1975/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/03/2026
undefined
Criminal Case No.20 of 2008. 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 9 witnesses and also produced 6 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 as well as
learned advocate for the original complainant have 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
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
Page 3 of 17
Uploaded by U. SRILATHA(HC00185) on Tue Mar 10 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Mar 10 22:18:58 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1975/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/03/2026
undefined
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.
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
Page 4 of 17
Uploaded by U. SRILATHA(HC00185) on Tue Mar 10 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Mar 10 22:18:58 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1975/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/03/2026
undefined
the Court :
8.1 The entire case of the prosecution is based on the
complaint filed vide Exh.16 dated 16.10.2007. It is the case
of the complainant viz., Minaben Hiralal Bhil that the
alleged incident had taken place on 10.10.2007 and the
complaint is filed on 16.10.2007. If the entire case of the
complainant is taken into consideration, on the date of the
incident, there was a dispute between the complainant and
the accused with respect to the fact that they had placed a
wire for hanging their dirty clothes between the house of the
complainant and the accused. It is at that point of time that
the accused had abused the complainant of his caste and had
threatened her. The complainant – Minaben Hiralal Bhil has
been examined as P.W.1, vide Exh.15. In her deposition, it
has been stated that because of the alleged incident, she wasfrightened and were not going out of the house, but at the
same time, there is a contradiction in her examination-in-
chief, where she has stated that her husband had gone for
his job and the complaint was filed on the next date, but
the fact remains that the said complaint was filed on
16.10.2007 i.e. after about five days, for the alleged incident
that has taken place on 10.10.2007. She has also stated in
her cross-examination that it is not true that the incident of
10.10.2007 had taken place with her.
Page 5 of 17
Uploaded by U. SRILATHA(HC00185) on Tue Mar 10 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Mar 10 22:18:58 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1975/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/03/2026
undefined
8.2 The husband of the complainant – Harilal
Kanjibhai Bhil has been examined as P.W.2, vide Exh.26. In
his deposition, he has stated that as he and his wife (the
complainant) were frightened, they could not file a complaint.
8.3 The panch witness of the panchanama (Exh.34)
viz., Tusharbhai Himmatlal Yadav has been examined as
P.W.3, vide Exh.33, who has supported the case of the
prosecution.
The neighbour of the complainant viz., Minaben
Himmatlal Yadav has been examined as P.W.4, vide Exh.38.
She has stated that she has heard the dispute, but she was
not able to hear properly. She has stated that she had heard
that there were abuses but as she was standing far, she
could not hear the said abuses.
The prosecution has also examined the other
neighbour – Kalpanaben Kiritbhai Kayastha, as P.W.5, vide
Exh.39. She has turned hostile and has not supported the
case of the prosecution.
The prosecution has examined the Investigating
Officer viz., Anirudhdhasinh Mahobatsinh Jadeja as P.W.6,
vide Exh.42, who was the Dy.S.P.
The prosecution has examined Ramanbhai
Babubhai Bhatiya, ASI, as P.W.7, vide Exh.46.
Page 6 of 17
Uploaded by U. SRILATHA(HC00185) on Tue Mar 10 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Mar 10 22:18:58 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1975/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/03/2026
undefined
The prosecution has examined Chinubhai Keshavlal
Pandya as P.W.8, vide Exh.50 for production of caste
certificate.
The prosecution has also examined Senior Clerk
for proving the School Leaving Certificate viz., Pravinbhai
Ambalal Patel as P.W.9, vide Exh.54.
8.4 The relevant fact, which the Court has taken into
consideration, is that the application that was filed by the
complainant on 15.10.2007 i.e. after five days of the alleged
incident that had taken place on 10.10.2007 and before the
complaint was filed on 16.10.2007, which has been produced
vide Exh.16, which has been placed on record through the
RTI, wherein, though the complaint is filed against the
present accused, but the fact remains that in the entire
complaint/application, which has been given to the Police
Commissioner, which is produced vide Exh.43, the
complainant is silent about the incident that had taken place
on 10.10.2007. Therefore, if, at all, the incident had taken
place on 10.10.2007, the complainant would have narrated the
said fact before the police while filing the application on
15.10.2007.
8.5 If the entire case of the prosecution is taken into
consideration, it transpires that at paragraph 6 of the cross-
Page 7 of 17
Uploaded by U. SRILATHA(HC00185) on Tue Mar 10 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Mar 10 22:18:58 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1975/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/03/2026
undefined
examination of P.W.1 – the complainant, states that her
husband got injured and there was bleeding on his hand and
was taken for treatment and the clothes of the husband of
the complainant were also torn, but the said fact has not
been stated in the application nor in the complaint (Exh.16)
and the said fact is also not proved by any medical
documents.
Moreover, it has been stated that the complainant
had gone to file a complaint on 10.10.2008 at Kanbha Police
Station, but the police has not taken the complaint, therefore,
they had gone to D.S.P. office. However, thereafter also, a
complaint has not been taken, but if the document produced
vide Exh.43 – RTI Application is taken into consideration, all
the said facts are not stated in the said
application/complaint. Moreover, even while filing the
complaint which is produced vide Exh.16 dated 16.10.2007,
the complaint is silent about the said fact.
8.6 There is total contradiction between the complaint
filed vide Exh.16 and the letter/application that has been
given to the Police Commissioner which is produced vide
Exh.53 of the dispute between the parties. Though the
complainant has stated that before filing the present
complaint (Exh.16), there were other previous complaints filed
by the complainant against the accused, but the fact remains
Page 8 of 17
Uploaded by U. SRILATHA(HC00185) on Tue Mar 10 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Mar 10 22:18:58 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1975/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/03/2026
undefined
that no such record of previous complaints has been produced
by the prosecution to prove its case.
8.7 In the complaint (Exh.16), it has been stated that
the alleged incident had taken place on 10.10.2007 at around
15.00 hours. In oral evidence, the complainant has stated
that she had lodged a complaint after her husband returned
from service i.e. on 11.10.2007, but the fact remains that
there is no such complaint produced by the prosecution to
prove that any complaint was filed on 11.10.2007. The fact
also remains that the prosecution has not been able to prove
that there was any injury caused to the husband of the
complainant in the alleged incident. The panch witness –
Tusharbhai Himmatlal Yadav (P.W.3), though has supported
the case of the prosecution, but the fact remains that he had
come without service of witness summons and has also stated
that there was a quarrel between his mother and accused
No.1 – Ushaben, but the said matter has been compromised.
8.8 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
Page 9 of 17
Uploaded by U. SRILATHA(HC00185) on Tue Mar 10 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Mar 10 22:18:58 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1975/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/03/2026
undefined
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
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.
8.9 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
Page 10 of 17
Uploaded by U. SRILATHA(HC00185) on Tue Mar 10 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Mar 10 22:18:58 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1975/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/03/2026
undefined
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
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 1967Page 11 of 17
Uploaded by U. SRILATHA(HC00185) on Tue Mar 10 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Mar 10 22:18:58 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATIONR/CR.A/1975/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/03/2026
undefined
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
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
Page 12 of 17
Uploaded by U. SRILATHA(HC00185) on Tue Mar 10 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Mar 10 22:18:58 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1975/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/03/2026
undefined
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
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 theorder 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.
Page 13 of 17
Uploaded by U. SRILATHA(HC00185) on Tue Mar 10 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Mar 10 22:18:58 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1975/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/03/2026
undefined
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.
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.
Page 14 of 17
Uploaded by U. SRILATHA(HC00185) on Tue Mar 10 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Mar 10 22:18:58 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1975/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/03/2026
undefined
(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
Page 15 of 17
Uploaded by U. SRILATHA(HC00185) on Tue Mar 10 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Mar 10 22:18:58 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1975/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/03/2026
undefined
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 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
Page 16 of 17
Uploaded by U. SRILATHA(HC00185) on Tue Mar 10 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Mar 10 22:18:58 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1975/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/03/2026
undefined
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,
accordingly. Record & Proceedings be remitted to the
concerned trial Court forthwith.
(SANJEEV J.THAKER,J)
SRILATHA
Page 17 of 17
Uploaded by U. SRILATHA(HC00185) on Tue Mar 10 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Mar 10 22:18:58 IST 2026
