Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Lohana Naranbhai @ Najubhai … on 23 June, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/464/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/06/2026
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 464 of 2012
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK
================================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
✔
================================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
LOHANA NARANBHAI @ NAJUBHAI LALCHANDBHAI & ANR.
================================================================
Appearance:
MS JIRGA JHAVERI, ADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the Appellant(s) No.
1
MR PK SHUKLA(1056) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 2
MR.MAULIN BAROT(3835) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1
================================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M.
PRACHCHHAK
Date : 23/06/2026
JUDGMENT
1. The appellant – State of Gujarat has preferred this appeal under
Section 378(1)(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the
judgment and order dated 02.02.2012 passed by the learned Special
Judge, Patan (hereinafter be referred to as “the trial Court”) in Special
(Atrocity) Case No.5 of 2010, whereby the trial Court has acquitted
the original accused (respondent No.1 herein) from the offences
punishable under Sections 332, 504 and 506(2) etc of the Indian Penal
Code and Section 3(1)(10) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled
Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter be referred to
as “the Atrocity Act”).
Page 1 of 12 Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Fri Jul 03 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Jul 04 02:16:55 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/464/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/06/2026 undefined
2. Short facts of the prosecution case are that, the complainant
viz., Jagdishbhai Tribhovandas Makwana was discharging his duty with
the Siddhpura Nagarpalika, who was entrusted with the work of
collecting the rents of the shops and houses and, therefore on
21.08.2009, he approached the respondent-accused for collecting the
amount of rent, however, altercation took place between them and,
thereafter, the compromise was arrived at between them. However,
keeping grudge about the said incident, on the day of incident i.e. on
15.09.2009, the respondent-accused caught hold the complainant and
assaulted him and also abused him in public place and, thereafter,
threatened to kill him and thereby, the respondent-accused has
committed alleged offences. Accordingly, offence came to be
registered with Siddhapur Police Station for the offences under
Sections 332, 504 and 506 (2) of the Indian Penal Code and under
Section 3(1)(10) of the Atrocity Act on 15.09.2009.
2.2 On the basis of complaint, the investigation was embarked
upon. On conclusion of the investigation, on the basis of the material
collected against the respondent-accused, since the Investigating
Officer found a prima-facie case against the respondents-accused,
chargesheet came to be filed before the Court of learned Judicial
Magistrate, First Class, Siddhapur for the offences under Sections 332,
504 and 506 (2) of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 3(1)(10)
of the Atrocity Act on 30.10.2009. Since the case registered against
the respondent-accused was exclusively triable by the Court of
Sessions, the earned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Siddhpur after
making inquiry about the suppliance of copies of papers, free of cost
to the accused as provided under Section 208 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure and upon satisfaction that the accused have engaged their
Page 2 of 12
Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Fri Jul 03 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Jul 04 02:16:55 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/464/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/06/2026
undefined
own Advocate for defence, committed the case to the Court of Session
Judge, Patan under Section 209 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
which came to be registered as Special (Atrocity) Case No.5 of 2010.
On committal, the case was transferred and placed for trial before the
learned Special Judge, Patan, who had initially framed charge for the
alleged offences vide Exh.9 on 16.07.2011. The charge was read over
and explained vide Exh.10. The statement of the respondent-accused
came to be recorded, wherein the respondent-accused pleaded not
guilty to the charge and claimed to be tried.
2.3 In order to bring home the charge leveled against the accused,
the prosecution has examined as many as 6 witnesses and relied
upon their oral testimony, i.e. Prosecution Witness No.1 viz., Makvana
Jagdishkumar Tribhovandas at Exh.11, Prosecution Witness No.2 viz.,
Mukeshkumar Babulal at Exh.14, Prosecution Witness No.3 viz.,
Dharmendrakumar Niranjanbhai Ghori at Exh.15, Prosecution Witness
No.4 viz., Jagdishbhai Dalabhai Vaghela at Exh.16, Prosecution
Witness No.5 viz., Jigarkumar Jivanlal Patel at Exh.17 and Prosecution
Witness No.6 viz., Shree Rathod Vajesinh Vakhatsinh at Exh.19. The
prosecution has also produced 7 documents and relied upon the
contents of the same, i.e. complaint at Exh.12, panchnama of scene
of offence at Exh.18, cast certificate of complainant at Exh.21,
wireless massage form at Exh.22, complaints, letter published in
Ratnamani weekly at Exh.26 etc.
3. After closure of the evidence, the statement of the accused
under section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 has been
recorded wherein he denied of having committed any offence and has
stated that he is innocent.
Page 3 of 12 Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Fri Jul 03 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Jul 04 02:16:55 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/464/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/06/2026 undefined
4. After hearing both sides and considering the evidence on
records, the trial Court by impugned judgment and order has
acquitted the accused from all the charges levelled against him.
5. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment
and order of acquittal the appellant – State of Gujarat has preferred
this appeal.
6. Heard Ms.Jirga Jhaveri, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for
the appellant – State of Gujarat, Mr.Maulin Barot, learned counsel for
the respondent No.1 – original accused and Mr.P.K. Shukla, learned
counsel for the respondent No.2 – original complainant at length.
7. Ms.Jhaveri, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for
the appellant – State of Gujarat has submitted the same facts which
are narrated in the memo of appeal and has also submitted that the
prosecution has examined witnesses and produced documentary
evidence, despite this fact, the trial Court has not considered the
same in its true and proper perspective in passing the judgment and
order of acquittal. Ms.Jhaveri , learned Additional Public Prosecutor,
while referring to the entire oral as well as documentary evidence,
has assailed the impugned judgment and order and submitted that
the trial Court has not taken into consideration the evidence
connecting the accused to the alleged offence in its proper
perspective and even the prosecution has been able to prove the
charges levelled against the accused. While referring to the evidence
of the witnesses and the material collected against the accused,
Ms.Jhaveri, learned Additional Public Prosecutor has submitted that
the prosecution has established the case against the accused by
examining the witnesses, who have supported the case of the
Page 4 of 12
Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Fri Jul 03 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Jul 04 02:16:55 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/464/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/06/2026
undefined
prosecution, however, the trial Court has discarded and disbelieved
the evidence of these witnesses. She has submitted that the
witnesses have fully supported the case of the prosecution, however,
the trial Court has not appreciated the same and passed the judgment
and order of acquittal which is illegal and unjust. She has submitted
that it is settled legal position that the evidence of a single witness is
sufficient for conviction if the same is reliable and trustworthy and in
the present case, though the evidence of all the witnesses are reliable
and trustworthy, without any cogent reason, the trial Court has
disbelieved and discarded the evidence of the witnesses.
7.1 According to Ms.Jhaveri , learned Additional Public Prosecutor,
the trial Court ought to have convicted the accused and ought to have
imposed necessary sentence. She has prayed to allow the present
appeal and to quash and set aside the impugned judgment and order
of acquittal.
8. Per contra, Mr.Barot, learned counsel for the respondent –
accused has supported the impugned judgment and order and has
submitted that the trial Court has not committed any error of law and
fact in acquitting the accused from the charges levelled against him.
He has submitted that the ingredients of the offence alleged against
the accused are not proved beyond reasonable doubt and, therefore,
the trial Court has rightly acquitted the accused as the prosecution
has failed to prove the charge levelled against the accused. He has
also submitted that there is no iota of evidence to connect the
accused with the alleged crime in question. He has prayed to confirm
the impugned judgment and dismiss the present appeal.
9. On perusal of the impugned judgment and order of acquittal
Page 5 of 12
Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Fri Jul 03 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Jul 04 02:16:55 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/464/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/06/2026
undefined
passed by the trial Court, the questions arise for determination are as
under:-
(1) whether the trial Court has rightly justified in passing the
judgment and order of acquittal.
(2) whether the trial Court has rightly appreciated the evidence
led by the prosecution in recording the reasons.
(3) whether there is any illegality, irregularity and perversity in
the impugned judgment and order of acquittal.
10. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective
parties and perused the material placed on record. It is the case of
the prosecution that on 21.08.2009, while the complainant was
discharging his duty in Siddhpura Nagarpalika, who was entrusted
with the work of collecting rent of the shops and houses, and as a part
of his duty when he went to the respondent accused to collect the
amount of rent of the shop no.35, owned by the respondent accused,
altercation took place between them and thereafter, the compromise
was arrived at between them, however, keeping grudge about the
said incident, on the day of alleged incident i.e. on 15.09.2009, as the
respondent was not paying the rent in time and there was a due of an
amount of Rs.1,800/- towards rent and, therefore, the complainant
alongwith one Mr.Mukeshbhai B. Dave went to collect rent from the
respondent accused, at that time, the respondent got angry and
made assault on the complainant. It is also alleged that the
respondent accused had also intentionally insulted the complainant
by using abusive words and, therefore, a complaint was registered by
the complainant as aforesaid. It suggests that, due to the delay in
registering the FIR, the complainant has completely concocted the
Page 6 of 12
Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Fri Jul 03 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Jul 04 02:16:55 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/464/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/06/2026
undefined
story of the alleged incident dated 15.09.2009. Further, PW-2, who
was accompanying the complainant on the day of the alleged
incident, has not supported the prosecution’s case on the vital aspect
of how and in what manner the alleged incident occurred. The said
witness has also not stated whether the respondent-accused used any
abusive words against the complainant with an intention to insult the
complainant. On perusal of the deposition of PW-6 – Vajesinh
Vakhatsinh Rathod being the Investigating Officer, in his cross-
examination, he has admitted that he has not recorded the
statements of any independent witnesses as the other shop owners
who were very much there in the same premises, have not supported
and they have been dropped and therefore, their statements were not
made part of the charge-sheet and not shown as witnesses in the
charge-sheet. There is a material discrepancy in the deposition of PW-
4. According to the case of the complainant, at the time of the alleged
incident, PW-4 had intervened and attempted to rescue the
complainant. However, a perusal of the deposition of PW-4 reveals
that he was not present at the time of the alleged incident and that he
reached the place of occurrence only after about 15 minutes. Thus,
the prosecution’s version that PW-4 intervened during the incident is
contradicted by the testimony of PW-4 himself. This material
contradiction stands proved from the deposition of PW-4 and goes to
the root of the prosecution case. The trial Court has discussed the
evidence adduced by the prosecution and dealt with the same in
detail from paragraph 30 onwards. A perusal of the findings recorded
by the trial Court from paragraph 40 onwards reveals that the trial
Court has assigned cogent and sufficient reasons for disbelieving the
prosecution’s case and acquitting the respondent-accused of the
charges levelled against him. In view of the above, I am of the opinion
that the trial Court has not committed any error of acts and law in
Page 7 of 12
Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Fri Jul 03 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Jul 04 02:16:55 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/464/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/06/2026
undefined
passing the impugned judgment and order and there is no any
illegality or any infirmity found in the judgment and order.
11. At this stage, it would be appropriate to refer to the decision of
the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Shajan Skaria Vs. State of
Kerala reported in AIR 2024 SC 4557, wherein, the Hon’ble Apex
Court has explained the provisions of Section 3(1)(10) of the Atrocity
Act, which is reiterated and clarified in the subsequent judgment of
the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Gunjan @ Girija Kumari Vs.
State (Nct Of Delhi) reported in 2026 (0) INSC 468, wherein the
Hon’ble Apex Court has clarified that only when abusive words are
uttered in a public place within public view, with an intention of
insulting a particular person on the basis of his community, then
under that circumstance only it attracts the ingredients of Section
3(1)(10) of the Atrocity Act and for establishing the commission of the
offence, the prosecution must lead prima facie satisfactory, cogent,
and material evidence to prove its case and herein the present case,
the evidence is completely silent on that aspect and no other
witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution.
12. It is well settled by catena of decisions that the an Appellate
Court has full power to review, re-appreciate and reconsider the
evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded. However,
Appellate Court 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 their innocence is further reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened
Page 8 of 12
Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Fri Jul 03 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Jul 04 02:16:55 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/464/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/06/2026
undefined
by the trial Court.
13. Further, 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. Further, while
exercising the powers in appeal against the order of acquittal, the
Court of appeal would not ordinarily interfere with the order of
acquittal unless the approach of the lower Court is vitiated by some
manifest illegality and the conclusion arrived at would not be arrived
at by any reasonable person and, therefore, the decision is to be
characterized as perverse. Merely because two views are possible, the
Court of appeal would not take the view which would upset the
judgment delivered by the Court below. However, the Appellate Court
has a power to review the evidence if it is of the view that the
conclusion arrived at by the Court below is perverse and the Court has
committed a manifest error of law and ignored the material evidence
on record. A duty is cast upon the Appellate Court, in such
circumstances, to re-appreciate the evidence to arrive to a just
decision on the basis of material placed on record to find out whether
the accused are connected with the commission of the crime with
which he is charged.
14. The scope and principles are enunciated by the Hon’ble Apex
Court in case of Chandrappa and others Vs. State of Karnataka
reported in (2007) 4 SCC 415, more particularly paragraph Nos.
42 and 43, which was subsequently re-affirmed by the Hon’ble Apex
Court Rajesh Prasad Vs. State of Bihar and another, reported in
[2022] 3 SCC 471, wherein, the Hon’ble Apex Court has enunciated
the general principles in case of acquittal, more particularly in
paragraph No. 26 the general principles are set out by the Hon’ble
Page 9 of 12
Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Fri Jul 03 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Jul 04 02:16:55 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/464/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/06/2026
undefined
Apex Court based upon various decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court.
Then in case of Babu Sahebagouda Rudragoudar Vs. State of
Karnataka, reported in AIR 2024 SC 2252 = (2024) 8 SCC 149,
the Hon’ble Apex Court has dealt with the similar issue, more
particularly, in paragraph Nos. 37 to 40. For the purpose of
considering the provisions of Section 3(1)(10) of the Atrocity Act, it is
worthwhile to refer to the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
the case of Talari Naresh Vs. State of Telangana, reported in
2026 (0) INSC 486 and in case of Sohanvir @ Sohanvir Dhama
Vs. State of U.P., reported in 2025 (16) JT 81. Hence, I am in
complete agreement with the findings recorded by the trial Court.
15. It is also worthwhile to refer to the recent decision of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ramesh vs. State of
Karnataka, reported in [2024] 9 SCC 169, wherein the Hon’ble
Supreme Court has held and observed in paras-20 and 21 as under:-
“20. At this stage, it would be relevant to refer to the
general principles culled out by this Court in Chandrappa
and others vs. State of Karnataka , regarding the power of
the appellate Court while dealing with an appeal against a
judgment of acquittal. The principles read thus:
“42. …. (1) An appellate court has full power to review,
reappreciate and reconsider the evidence upon which the
order of acquittal is founded.
(2) The Code of Criminal Procedure, 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”, “glaringPage 10 of 12
Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Fri Jul 03 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Jul 04 02:16:55 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATIONR/CR.A/464/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/06/2026
undefined
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 emphasize the reluctance of an appellate
court to interfere with acquittal than to curtail the power of
the court to review the evidence and to come to its own
conclusion.
(4) An appellate court, however, must bear in mind that in
case of acquittal, there is double presumption in favour of
the accused. Firstly, the presumption of innocence is
available to him under the fundamental principle of
criminal jurisprudence that every person shall be presumed
to be innocent unless he is proved guilty by a competent
court of law. Secondly, the accused having secured his
acquittal, the presumption of his innocence is further
reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by the trial court.
(5) If two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis
of the evidence on record, the appellate court should not
disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial court.
21. In Rajendra Prasad v. State of Bihar, a three-Judge
Bench of this Court pointed out that it would be essential
for the High Court, in an appeal against acquittal, to clearly
indicate firm and weighty grounds from the record for
discarding the reasons of the Trial Court in order to be able
to reach a contrary conclusion of guilt of the accused. It
was further observed that, in an appeal against acquittal, it
would not be legally sufficient for the High Court to take a
contrary view about the credibility of witnesses and it is
absolutely imperative that the High Court convincingly
finds it well-nigh impossible for the Trial Court to reject
their testimony. This was identified as the quintessence of
the jurisprudential aspect of criminal justice. Viewed in this
light, the brusque approach of the High Court in dealing
with the appeal, resulting in the conviction of Appellant
Nos. 1 and 2, reversing the cogent and well-considered
judgment of acquittal by the Trial Court giving them the
benefit of doubt, cannot be sustained.”
16. Considering the entire evidence on record, it clearly appears
that there is no credible evidence to connect the present accused with
the alleged crime and the evidence on record is not so convincing to
prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused has committed the
Page 11 of 12
Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Fri Jul 03 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Jul 04 02:16:55 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/464/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/06/2026
undefined
alleged crime. Therefore, the accused cannot be convicted on the
evidence on record.
17. On perusal of the impugned judgment and order, it clearly
transpires that the trial Court has not committed any error of fact and
law in appreciating the evidence on record and in acquitting the
accused from the charges levelled against him. Even on re-
appreciation of the evidence, it clearly transpires that the prosecution
has miserably failed to prove the charge levelled against the accused
beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, the impugned judgment and
order of the trial Court is sustainable and the present appeal is liable
to be dismissed.
18. In view of the above, the present appeal is devoid of merits and
it deserves to be dismissed. Resultantly, it is dismissed. The
impugned judgment and order of acquittal passed by the trial Court is
hereby confirmed. Bail bond stands cancelled. Record and
proceedings be sent back to the concerned Trial Court forthwith.
(HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK,J)
Dolly
Page 12 of 12
Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Fri Jul 03 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Jul 04 02:16:55 IST 2026
