Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Gauriben Wd/O Dhanjibhai Ratnabhai … on 9 July, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2021/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/07/2026
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2021 of 2010
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK
==========================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
✔
==========================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
GAURIBEN WD/O DHANJIBHAI RATNABHAI GHAKOR (FORANIYA) &
ORS.
==========================================
Appearance:
MS JIRGA JHAVERI APP for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR PATHIK M ACHARYA(3520) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No.
1,2,3,4,5,6,7
NOTICE SERVED for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 8
==========================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK
Date : 09/07/2026
ORAL 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 13.08.2010 passed by the learned Special
Judge (Atrocity) and Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural),
Ahmedabad (hereinafter be referred to as “the trial Court”) in Special
Atrocity Case No.34 of 2009, whereby the trial Court has acquitted the
original accused (respondents herein) for the offence punishable
Page 1 of 27
Uploaded by V.R. PANCHAL(HC00171) on Thu Jul 16 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 16 21:07:21 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2021/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/07/2026
undefined
under Sections 143, 294(B), 323, 506(2) etc of the Indian Penal Code
[hereinafter be referred to as “the IPC“] and under Section 3(1)(x) of
the the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as “the Atrocity Act”).
2. Short facts of the prosecution case are that on 02.06.2008, at
about 10:00 a.m., Gauriben had started repairing work of her old
illegal rooms and on the next day, the Corporation had ordered that
the construction work be stopped and they had instructed that the
repairing work on these rooms should not continue, for which,
Vinubhai was informed that the work would nevertheless continue.
Accordingly, on 03.06.2008, they went to the Corporation and
informed the official of the Corporation that the construction had
started at the place mentioned in their Application No. 1564 dated
29.01.2008, and requested that same be stopped. On 04.06.2008 at
about 12:30 p.m., while he was at home, his wife Nimaben, sister
Archanaben, and mother Narmadaben were present. At that time, a
Municipal Corporation vehicle arrived with the officer of the
Corporation and his staff to demolish the room which had been
constructed. At that time, Gauriben and her daughter Poonamben
were present there and they were having an argument with the
Corporation officials. At that time, Vijay Sukhabhai and his friend,
whom the complainant could identify by sight, entered the
complainant’s house and began loudly hurling filthy and abusive
language at the complainant. Thereafter, the Corporation officials had
completed their work and left the place and during this time,
Gauriben’s son-in-law Ghanshyam, Vinubhai’s wife Geetaben,
Dhabuben (Gauriben’s daughter), Manuben, Rameshbhai, and five to
seven unidentified women and men had gathered there. At that time,
Mrigeshbhai Nakum and the complainant’s relative Shankarbhai Dabhi
Page 2 of 27
Uploaded by V.R. PANCHAL(HC00171) on Thu Jul 16 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 16 21:07:21 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2021/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/07/2026
undefined
also arrived near the complainant’s house. The accused then again
started using filthy and abusive language due to which complaint
being C.R. No.II – 301/2008 was lodged by the complainant before
Vejalpur Police Station for the aforesaid offences. The police prepared
panchnama of the scene of offence and after preparing the arrest
panchnama, the accused came to be arrested. On completion of
investigation, charge sheet was submitted into the Court of learned
J.M.F.C.
2.1 The charge against the accused came to be framed by the trial
Court vide Exhibit 4 for the aforesaid offences against the accused.
On being explained it to them, the accused have denied having
committed any offence. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge
and pleaded for trial and hence, the case was tried by the learned
Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural).
3. It appears from the records that to prove the case, the
prosecution has examined the witnesses and in addition to this, the
prosecution has also produced the documentary evidence.
4. After closure of the evidence, the statements of the accused
under section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 have been
recorded wherein they denied of having committed any offence and
have stated that they are innocent.
5. 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 them.
6. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment
Page 3 of 27
Uploaded by V.R. PANCHAL(HC00171) on Thu Jul 16 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 16 21:07:21 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2021/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/07/2026
undefined
and order of acquittal the appellant – State of Gujarat has preferred
this appeal.
7. Heard Ms.Jirga Jhaveri, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for
the appellant – State of Gujarat, Mr.Pathik Acharya, learned counsel
for respondents at length.
8. 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. She, 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, 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 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
Page 4 of 27
Uploaded by V.R. PANCHAL(HC00171) on Thu Jul 16 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 16 21:07:21 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2021/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/07/2026
undefined
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.
8.1 Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has further submitted that
the impugned judgment of acquittal is contrary to the evidence on
record, based on erroneous appreciation of material evidence, and
has resulted in a miscarriage of justice and the findings recorded by
the learned Trial Court are perverse and unsustainable in law, thereby
calling for interference by this Court in the exercise of its appellate
jurisdiction. She has also submitted that the learned Trial Court has
materially erred in holding that the prosecution has failed to prove its
case beyond reasonable doubt and the findings recorded by the trial
Court were therefore perverse, illegal, and contrary to the evidence
on record.
8.2 Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has submitted that the
accused with the help of each other and with common intention and
motive, formed unlawful assembly and threatened to kill the
complainant and caused grievous injuries to the complainant. She has
submitted that the trial Court has not considered the decisions of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court and the ratio laid down. She has submitted
that the prosecution has examined the complainant, investigating
officer and other witnesses in support o the case and produced ample
material in the form of oral as well as documentary evidence,
however, the trial Court has not properly appreciated the same. She
has submitted that the muddamal was recovered from the accused
and even the caste certificate of the complainant, which was fully
supported the case of the prosecution, however, the trial Court has
Page 5 of 27
Uploaded by V.R. PANCHAL(HC00171) on Thu Jul 16 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 16 21:07:21 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2021/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/07/2026
undefined
committed an error in not appreciating such material.
8.3 According to learned Additional Public Prosecutor, the trial Court
ought to have convicted the accused and ought to have imposed
necessary sentence. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has prayed
to allow the present appeal and to quash and set aside the impugned
judgment and order of acquittal.
9. Per contra, Mr.Acharya, learned counsel for the respondents
have 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 them. 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 complainant 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 submitted that the
evidence led by the prosecution suffers from material contradictions,
omissions, and inconsistencies, which create serious doubt about the
veracity of the prosecution case and the prosecution has failed to
establish the essential ingredients of the alleged offences and has not
produced reliable, trustworthy, and corroborative evidence connecting
the respondent with the commission of the alleged offence. He has
submitted that it is a settled principle of criminal jurisprudence that
the presumption of innocence in favour of an accused is further
strengthened by an order of acquittal. It is submitted that unless the
findings recorded by the trial Court are shown to be perverse, illegal,
or contrary to the evidence on record, the Appellate Court should be
slow in interfering with an order of acquittal. It is submitted that the
Page 6 of 27
Uploaded by V.R. PANCHAL(HC00171) on Thu Jul 16 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 16 21:07:21 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2021/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/07/2026
undefined
appellant has failed to point out any infirmity, illegality, perversity, or
misreading of evidence in the impugned judgment and order and the
findings recorded by the learned trial Court are based upon proper
appreciation of the evidence and settled legal principles. Learned
counsel for the respondents has submitted that the appeal being
meritless deserves to be dismissed and the impugned judgment and
order of acquittal deserves to be confirmed.
9.1 In support of his submissions, Mr.Acharya, learned counsel has
relied upon the following decisions:
(1) Karuppudayar Vs. State Rep. By The Deputy Superintendent Of
Police, Lalgudi Trichy, AIR 2025 SC 705
(2) Hitesh Verma Vs. State Of Uttarakhand, (2020) 10 SCC 710
(3) Jagdish Vs. State Of Haryana, (2019) 7 SCC 711
10. On perusal of the impugned judgment and order of acquittal
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 oral as well
as documentary 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.
11. Considering the facts of the present case, it appears that on
04.06.2008 at about 12.30 hours, when the complainant along with
Page 7 of 27
Uploaded by V.R. PANCHAL(HC00171) on Thu Jul 16 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 16 21:07:21 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2021/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/07/2026
undefined
his family members were present at the residence, at that time, upon
the complaint made by the complainant to the Municipal Corporation
with regard to the unauthorized construction made by the accused at
the vacant government land. The concerned officer of the Municipal
Corporation, visited the place and for the purpose of demolition
unauthorized construction, at that time accused have started quarrel
with the complainant and his family members and also made an
assault and also used filthy language with an intent to insult the
complainant to his community and that is how, the alleged incident
occurred and the complaint for the offence was lodged. It is an
admitted fact that there was cross complaint wherein the present
complainant along with his family members shown as an accused for
the offence under Section 323, 294(b), 506(1), 114 etc of the IPC.
Both cases were investigated and the charge-sheet filed against all
the accused. The case against the complainant namely Parimal was
tried by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mirzapur, Ahmedabad
(Rural), whereby the learned Magistrate has decided the same and
acquitted all the concerned accused vide judgment and order dated
30.07.2009, whereas, the present case registered by the Parimal
against the present accused. On perusal of the evidence of P.W.1 –
Parimal Atmarambhai Dabhi (Exhibit 16), P.W.2 – Nima Parimal Dabhi
(Exhibit 19), P.W.3 – Archna Atmarambhai Dabhi (Exhibit 20), P.W.4 –
Manjibhai valabhai Solanki (Exhibit 22), Mrugesh Dahyabhai Nakul
(Exhiit 24), P.W.6 – Shankarbhai Khanabhai Dabhi (Exhibit 25) and
P.W.7 – Ganpatbhai Dahyabhai Chauhan (Exhibit 28), it appears that
all witnesses are the near relatives of the complainant and are
interested witnesses since there was dispute in respect to the land
which is in possession of accused No.1 – Gauriben. The parcel of
vacant land is just adjoining to the land of respondent No.1, which
was earlier used by the complainant and their family members for
Page 8 of 27
Uploaded by V.R. PANCHAL(HC00171) on Thu Jul 16 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 16 21:07:21 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2021/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/07/2026
undefined
parking of their vehicles and since it was objected by respondent
No.1, the complainant, who was serving as press reporter in the Times
of India moved an application and raised an objection against the
construction put up by respondent No.1 on the said land and on
account of that the dispute cropped up between the two families. It is
the case of the prosecution that at the time of officer of the Municipal
Corporation visited the place and demolished the unauthorized
construction put up by respondent No.1 and hence the quarrel and
altercation had taken place between two groups and in the result,
there was an assault made by the respondents upon the complainant
and his family members. On perusal of the said witnesses, it appears
that the fact is not supported and it is contrary to the case adhered by
the complainant. There is material contradiction in the evidence of the
witnesses with regard to the time of registration of the FIR. From the
material on record, it appears that the FIR which was registered by
the accused is prior in point of time, whereas, the FIR registered on
04.06.2008 at 6.00 p.m. by Parimal, P.W.1 was subsequent in time
meaning thereby that the complainant tried to save his skin from the
criminal complaint since the complaint was registered against the
accused with concocted and cooked up story by the complainant and
in support of the complaint, the police has recorded the statement of
only interested witnesses. The Investigating Officer has not recorded
the statement of the independent witnesses, who were residing in
nearby and who were present as alleged by the complainant at the
time of incident. It is to be noted that while recording the reasons, the
trial Court has observed that though the dispute had started on
account of demolition carried out by the Municipal Corporation and
their officers were present, the Investigating Officer has neither
collected the evidence from the Municipal Corporation nor recovered
any application which was made by the complainant to the
Page 9 of 27
Uploaded by V.R. PANCHAL(HC00171) on Thu Jul 16 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 16 21:07:21 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2021/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/07/2026
undefined
Corporation nor he has examined the witnesses from the Corporation
to the effect that who were the officers remained present at the time
of incident. On this aspect, the prosecution has remained silent and
there was no evidence worth the name which brought before the trial
Court to connect the present accused with the crime in question. Now
looking to the evidence of these related witnesses, it appears that the
wife Nimaben was serving in concerned government department, who
she was present at home on that day at the time which was
mentioned by the complainant. Whether P.W.2 was on leave on that
day for which no such investigation was carried out to that effect. So
far as the sister namely Archna is concerned, whether at the time of
incident, her presence was established or not; that is the question
during the investigation and no sufficient evidence came forth on
record. On perusal of the evidence of Mukeshbhai whose plot was
adjacent to the plot of accused No.1 and since the dispute was going
on between Suryakant and Gauriben, it appears that the brother of
P.W.5 has admitted in his evidence that since he wanted to merge
the land of accused No.1 with his plot, the quarrel had taken place
and, therefore, he is also an interested witness and cousin brother of
Parimalbhai then the evidence of Shankarbhai, who was the retired
executive engineer and uncle of the complainant. If this Court peruses
the evidence of Shankarbhai viz-a-viz evidence of Parimalbhai, there
are major contradiction with regard to the time of incident, lodging of
the FIR and presence of the complainant and others. The said witness
has tried to inform Vijaybhai with an allegation that Vijaybhai had
given kick and fist blows to Shankarbhai, however, the injured has not
sustained any injury by this witness Shankarbhai nor any medical
certificate was recovered by the Investigating Officer with regard to
the injury caused to P.W.6 at the hands of the accused. So far as the
allegations made against the accused are concerned, if this Court
Page 10 of 27
Uploaded by V.R. PANCHAL(HC00171) on Thu Jul 16 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 16 21:07:21 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2021/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/07/2026
undefined
considers the fact that the time of offence and date of offence is
concerned, the FIR lodged by respondent No.1 was first in point of
time, whereas, the FIR lodged against the accused appears to be an
afterthought and counterblast. Therefore, the trial Court has observed
that all these witnesses were intentionally deposed in favour of the
complainant with an intent to implicate the accused in the alleged
offence and there were material lacuna found during the course of the
investigation and recording of the evidence of the concerned officers.
It is the case of the complainant from the beginning that niece of
accused No.1 was present at the time of incident and she was also
abusing the complainant and in scuffle at the hands of the
complainant her clothes were torn. It emerges from the record that
the niece of accused No.1 was not joined as accused nor was she
cited as a witness. It suggests that how the investigation was carried
out by the Investigating Officer and under such circumstances, the
trial Court has rightly disbelieved the case against the accused. So far
as the allegations with regard to abuse with an intent to insult of the
complainant is concerned, there was no evidence worth the name is
corroborated with the crime in question and the prosecution has not
produced cogent evidence with regard to the charge under Section
3(1)(x) of the Atrocity Act.
12. In view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case
of Naresh Kumar Vs. State of Haryana, reported in (2024) 3 SCC
573, the basic ingredient is required to be proved for the charge
under Section 3(1)(x) of the Atrocity Act that it is in a public place or
in presence of the public and in a public view and with an intend to
insult any person by using abusive word to his/her community then
only the charge under Section 3(1)(x) of the Atrocity Act can be
attributed. In the present case, looking to the contents of the FIR, it
Page 11 of 27
Uploaded by V.R. PANCHAL(HC00171) on Thu Jul 16 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 16 21:07:21 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2021/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/07/2026
undefined
suggests that there is no ingredient of Section 3(1)(x) of the Atrocity
Act proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. On close
scrutinizing the evidence of the witnesses, it appears that all the
witnesses have not narrated true and correct facts before the Court
below and suppressed the genesis and even the prosecution is unable
to lead any cogent evidence. On perusal of the evidence of P.W.8 and
P.W.9, it appears that these witnesses are the police officers of the
rank of DY.S.P. and In-charge of SC/ST Cell, who had not properly
investigated the case and collected any evidence and, therefore,
under the circumstances, the trial Court has rightly discussed the
evidence of the witnesses in detail in passing the impugned judgment
and order of acquittal.
13. So far as the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case
of Jagdish (Supra) is concerned, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has laid
down the ratio with regard to the quality of the witnesses and
testimony of the witnesses; whether reliance can be placed on this
witness or any inimical witness. In the present case, it is already
discussed that the prosecution has examined only interested
witnesses and, therefore, their testimony is required to be scrutinized
and if it is found to be genuine, then their evidence can be
considered.
14. So far as the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case
Hitesh Verma (supra) is concerned, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has
held and observed that all insults or intimidations to a person will not
be an offence under the Act unless such insult or intimidation is on
account of victim belonging to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe.
The object of the Act is to improve the socio-economic conditions of
the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes as they are denied
Page 12 of 27
Uploaded by V.R. PANCHAL(HC00171) on Thu Jul 16 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 16 21:07:21 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2021/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/07/2026
undefined
number of civil rights. Thus, an offence under the Act would be made
out when a member of the vulnerable section of the Society is
subjected to indignities, humiliations and harassment. Under the
circumstances, the Hon’ble Supreme Court had issued certain
guidelines that the objects and reasons of the enactment of the Act is
to be looked into and it is to be seen from the evidence collected by
the prosecution. In the case of Hitesh Verma (supra), the Hon’ble
Supreme Court has held and observed in paras 8, 9, 10, 11 to 25 as
under:-
“8. Against the backdrop of these facts, it is pertinent to
refer to the Statement of Objects and Reasons of
enactment of the Act. It is provided as under:
“Statement of Objects and Reasons. – Despite various
measures to improve the socioeconomic conditions of the
Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes, they remain
vulnerable. They are denied number of civil rights. They
are subjected to various offences, indignities, humiliations
and harassment. They have, in several brutal incidents,
been deprived of their life and property. Serious crimes are
committed against them for various historical, social and
economic reasons.
2. Because of the awareness created amongst the
Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes through spread
of education, etc., they are trying to assert their rights and
this is not being taken very kindly by the others. When they
assert their rights and resist practices of untouchability
against them or demand statutory minimum wages or
refuse to do any bonded and forced labour, the vested
interests try to cow them down and terrorise them. When
the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes try to
preserve their self respect or honour of their women, they
become irritants for the dominant and the mighty.
Occupation and cultivation of even the Government
allotted land by the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled
Tribes is resented and more often these people become
victims of attacks by the vested interests. Of late, there
has been an increase in the disturbing trend of commission
of certain atrocities like making the Scheduled CastePage 13 of 27
Uploaded by V.R. PANCHAL(HC00171) on Thu Jul 16 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 16 21:07:21 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATIONR/CR.A/2021/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/07/2026
undefined
persons eat inedible substances like human excreta and
attacks on and mass killings of helpless Scheduled Castes
and the Scheduled Tribes and rape of women belonging to
the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes. Under the
circumstances, the existing laws like the Protection of Civil
Rights Act, 1955 and the normal provisions of the Indian
Penal Code have been found to be inadequate to check
these crimes. A special Legislation to check and deter
crimes against them committed by non-Scheduled Castes
and non-Scheduled Tribes has, therefore, become
necessary.”
9. The long title of the Act is to prevent the commission
of offences of atrocities against the members of the
Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes, to provide for
Special Courts and Exclusive Special Courts for the trial of
such offences and for the relief and rehabilitation of the
victims of such offences and for matters connected
therewith or incidental thereto.
10. The Act was enacted to improve the social economic
conditions of the vulnerable sections of the society as they
have been subjected to various offences such as
indignities, humiliations and harassment. They have been
deprived of life and property as well. The object of the Act
is thus to punish the violators who inflict indignities,
humiliations and harassment and commit the offence as
defined under Section 3 of the Act. The Act is thus intended
to punish the acts of the upper caste against the
vulnerable section of the society for the reason that they
belong to a particular community.
11. It may be stated that the charge-sheet filed is for an
offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act. The said section
stands substituted by Act No. 1 of 2016 w.e.f. 26.1.2016.
The substituted corresponding provision is Section 3(1)(r)
which reads as under:
“3(1)(r) intentionally insults or intimidates with intent to
humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled
Tribe in any place within public view;”
12. The basic ingredients of the offence under Section
3(1)(r) of the Act can be classified as “1) intentionally
insults or intimidates with intent to humiliate a member of
Page 14 of 27
Uploaded by V.R. PANCHAL(HC00171) on Thu Jul 16 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 16 21:07:21 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2021/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/07/2026
undefined
a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe and 2) in any place
within public view”.
13. The offence under Section 3(1)(r) of the Act would
indicate the ingredient of intentional insult and intimidation
with an intent to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste
or a Scheduled Tribe. All insults or intimidations to a person
will not be an offence under the Act unless such insult or
intimidation is on account of victim belonging to Scheduled
Caste or Scheduled Tribe. The object of the Act is to
improve the socio-economic conditions of the Scheduled
Castes and the Scheduled Tribes as they are denied
number of civil rights. Thus, an offence under the Act
would be made out when a member of the vulnerable
section of the Society is subjected to indignities,
humiliations and harassment. The assertion of title over the
land by either of the parties is not due to either the
indignities, humiliations or harassment. Every citizen has a
right to avail their remedies in accordance with law.
Therefore, if the appellant or his family members have
invoked jurisdiction of the civil court, or that respondent
No.2 has invoked the jurisdiction of the civil court, then the
parties are availing their remedies in accordance with the
procedure established by law. Such action is not for the
reason that respondent No.2 is member of Scheduled
Caste.
14. Another key ingredient of the provision is insult or
intimidation in “any place within public view”. What is to be
regarded as “place in public view” had come up for
consideration before this Court in the judgment reported as
Swaran Singh & Ors. v. State through Standing Counsel &
Ors., (2008) 8 SCC 435. The Court had drawn distinction
between the expression “public place” and “in any place
within public view”. It was held that if an offence is
committed outside the building e.g. in a lawn outside a
house, and the lawn can be seen by someone from the
road or lane outside the boundary wall, then the lawn
would certainly be a place within the public view. On the
contrary, if the remark is made inside a building, but some
members of the public are there (not merely relatives or
friends) then it would not be an offence since it is not in the
public view (sic). The Court held as under: (SCC pp. 443 –
44, para 28)
Page 15 of 27
Uploaded by V.R. PANCHAL(HC00171) on Thu Jul 16 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 16 21:07:21 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2021/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/07/2026
undefined
“28. It has been alleged in the FIR that Vinod Nagar, the
first informant, was insulted by Appellants 2 and 3 (by
calling him a “chamar”) when he stood near the car which
was parked at the gate of the premises. In our opinion, this
was certainly a place within public view, since the gate of a
house is certainly a place within public view. It could have
been a different matter had the alleged offence been
committed inside a building, and also was not in the public
view. However, if the offence is committed outside the
building e.g. in a lawn outside a house, and the lawn can
be seen by someone from the road or lane outside the
boundary wall, the lawn would certainly be a place within
the public view. Also, even if the remark is made inside a
building, but some members of the public are there (not
merely relatives or friends) then also it would be an offence
since it is in the public view. We must, therefore, not
confuse the expression “place within public view” with the
expression “public place”. A place can be a private place
but yet within the public view. On the other hand, a public
place would ordinarily mean a place which is owned or
leased by the Government or the municipality (or other
local body) or gaon sabha or an instrumentality of the
State, and not by private persons or private
bodies.”(emphasis in original)
15. As per the FIR, the allegations of abusing the
informant were within the four walls of her building. It is
not the case of the informant that there was any member
of the public (not merely relatives or friends) at the time of
the incident in the house. Therefore, the basic ingredient
that the words were uttered “in any place within public
view” is not made out. In the list of witnesses appended to
the charge-sheet, certain witnesses are named but it could
not be said that those were the persons present within the
four walls of the building. The offence is alleged to have
taken place within the four walls of the building. Therefore,
in view of the judgment of this Court in Swaran Singh, it
cannot be said to be a place within public view as none was
said to be present within the four walls of the building as
per the FIR and/or charge-sheet.
16. There is a dispute about the possession of the land
which is the subject matter of civil dispute between the
parties as per respondent No.2 herself. Due to dispute,
appellant and others were not permitting respondent No.2
Page 16 of 27
Uploaded by V.R. PANCHAL(HC00171) on Thu Jul 16 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 16 21:07:21 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2021/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/07/2026
undefined
to cultivate the land for the last six months. Since the
matter is regarding possession of property pending before
the Civil Court, any dispute arising on account of
possession of the said property would not disclose an
offence under the Act unless the victim is abused,
intimated or harassed only for the reason that she belongs
to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe.
17. In another judgment reported as Khuman Singh v.
State of Madhya Pradesh, 2019 SCC OnLine SC 1104 this
Court held that in a case for applicability of Section 3(2)(v)
of the Act, the fact that the deceased belonged to
Scheduled Caste would not be enough to inflict enhanced
punishment. This Court held that there was nothing to
suggest that the offence was committed by the appellant
only because the deceased belonged to Scheduled Caste.
The Court held as under:
“15. As held by the Supreme Court, the offence must be
such so as to attract the offence under Section 3(2)(v) of
the Act. The offence must have been committed against
the person on the ground that such person is a member of
Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe. In the present case,
the fact that the deceased was belonging to “Khangar”-
Scheduled Caste is not disputed. There is no evidence to
show that the offence was committed only on the ground
that the victim was a member of the Scheduled Caste and
therefore, the conviction of the appellant-accused under
Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled
Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act is not sustainable.”
18. Therefore, offence under the Act is not established
merely on the fact that the informant is a member of
Scheduled Caste unless there is an intention to humiliate a
member of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe for the
reason that the victim belongs to such caste. In the present
case, the parties are litigating over possession of the land.
The allegation of hurling of abuses is against a person who
claims title over the property. If such person happens to be
a Scheduled Caste, the offence under Section 3(1)(r) of the
Act is not made out.
19. This Court in a judgment reported as Dr. Subhash
Page 17 of 27
Uploaded by V.R. PANCHAL(HC00171) on Thu Jul 16 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 16 21:07:21 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2021/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/07/2026
undefined
Kashinath Mahajan v. State of Maharashtra & Anr., (2018) 6
SCC 454 issued certain directions in respect of
investigations required to be conducted under the Act. In a
review filed by the Union against the said judgment, this
Court in a judgment reported as Union of India v. State of
Maharashtra & Ors., (2020) 4 SCC 761 reviewed the
directions issued by this Court and held that if there is a
false and unsubstantiated FIR, the proceedings under
Section 482 of the Code can be invoked. The Court held as
under:
“52. There is no presumption that the members of the
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes may misuse the
provisions of law as a class and it is not resorted to by the
members of the upper castes or the members of the elite
class. For lodging a false report, it cannot be said that the
caste of a person is the cause. It is due to the human
failing and not due to the caste factor. Caste is not
attributable to such an act. On the other hand, members of
the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes due to
backwardness hardly muster the courage to lodge even a
first information report, much less, a false one. In case it is
found to be false/unsubstantiated, it may be due to the
faulty investigation or for other various reasons including
human failings irrespective of caste factor. There may be
certain cases which may be false that can be a ground for
interference by the Court, but the law cannot be changed
due to such misuse. In such a situation, it can be taken
care of in proceeding under Section 482 CrPC.”
20. Later, while examining the constitutionality of the
provisions of the Amending Act (Central Act No. 27 of
2018), this Court in a judgment reported as Prathvi Raj
Chauhan v. Union of India & Ors., (2020) 4 SCC 727 held
that proceedings can be quashed under Section 482 of the
Code. It was held as under:
“12. The Court can, in exceptional cases, exercise power
under Section 482 CrPC for quashing the cases to prevent
misuse of provisions on settled parameters, as already
observed while deciding the review petitions. The legal
position is clear, and no argument to the contrary has been
raised.”
Page 18 of 27
Uploaded by V.R. PANCHAL(HC00171) on Thu Jul 16 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 16 21:07:21 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2021/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/07/2026
undefined
21. In Gerige Pentaiah, one of the arguments raised was
nondisclosure of the caste of the accused but the facts
were almost similar as there was civil dispute between
parties pending and the allegation was that the accused
has called abuses in the name of the caste of the victim.
The High Court herein has misread the judgment of this
Court in Ashabai Machindra Adhagale as it was not a case
about the caste of the victim but the fact that the accused
was belonging to upper caste was not mentioned in the
FIR. The High Court of Bombay had quashed the
proceedings for the reason that the caste of the accused
was not mentioned in the FIR, therefore, the offence under
Section 3(1)(xi) of the Act is not made out. In an appeal
against the decision of the Bombay High Court, this Court
held that this will be the matter of investigation as to
whether the accused either belongs to or does not belong
to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. Therefore, the High
Court erred in law to dismiss the quashing petition relying
upon later larger Bench judgment.
22. The appellant had sought quashing of the charge-
sheet on the ground that the allegation does not make out
an offence under the Act against the appellant merely
because respondent No. 2 was a Scheduled Caste since the
property dispute was not on account of the fact that
respondent No. 2 was a Scheduled Caste. The property
disputes between a vulnerable section of the society and a
person of upper caste will not disclose any offence under
the Act unless, the allegations are on account of the victim
being a Scheduled Caste. Still further, the finding that the
appellant was aware of the caste of the informant is wholly
inconsequential as the knowledge does not bar, any person
to protect his rights by way of a procedure established by
law.
23. This Court in a judgment reported as Ishwar Pratap
Singh & Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr., (2018) 13
SCC 612 held that there is no prohibition under the law for
quashing the charge-sheet in part. In a petition filed under
Section 482 of the Code, the High Court is required to
examine as to whether its intervention is required for
prevention of abuse of process of law or otherwise to
secure the ends of justice. The Court held as under:
Page 19 of 27
Uploaded by V.R. PANCHAL(HC00171) on Thu Jul 16 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 16 21:07:21 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2021/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/07/2026
undefined
“9. Having regard to the settled legal position on external
interference in investigation and the specific facts of this
case, we are of the view that the High Court ought to have
exercised its jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC to secure
the ends of justice. There is no prohibition under law for
quashing a charge-sheet in part. A person may be accused
of several offences under different penal statutes, as in the
instant case. He could be aggrieved of prosecution only on
a particular charge or charges, on any ground available to
him in law. Under Section 482, all that the High Court is
required to examine is whether its intervention is required
for implementing orders under the Criminal Procedure
Code or for prevention of abuse of process, or otherwise to
secure the ends of justice. A charge-sheet filed at the
dictate of somebody other than the police would amount to
abuse of the process of law and hence the High Court
ought to have exercised its inherent powers under Section
482 to the extent of the abuse. There is no requirement
that the charge-sheet has to be quashed as a whole and
not in part. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed. The
supplementary report filed by the police, at the direction of
the Commission, is quashed.”
24. In view of the above facts, we find that the charges
against the appellant under Section 3(1)(r) of the Act are
not made out. Consequently, the charge-sheet to that
extent is quashed. The appeal is disposed of in the above
terms.
25. The FIR in respect of other offences will be tried by
the competent Court in accordance with law along with the
criminal case11, though separately initiated, for the reason
that it relates to interparty dispute and is in respect of
same subject matter of property, despite of the fact that
two different dates of the incident have been provided by
the parties.”
15. In the case of Karuppudayar (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme
Court has held and observed in paras 8 to 11 as under:-
“8. For appreciating the rival submissions, it will be
apposite to refer to the provisions of Sections 3(1)(r) and
3(1)(s) of the SC-ST Act, which read thus:
Page 20 of 27
Uploaded by V.R. PANCHAL(HC00171) on Thu Jul 16 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 16 21:07:21 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2021/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/07/2026
undefined
“3. Punishments for offences of atrocities.–
(1) Whoever, not being a member of a Scheduled Caste or
a Scheduled Tribe,–
(a) ………………………………………………
(b) ………………………………………………
xxx xxx xxx
(r) intentionally insults or intimidates with intent to
humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled
Tribe in any place within public view;
(s) abuses any member of a Scheduled Caste or a
Scheduled Tribe by caste name in any place within public
view;”
9. A perusal of Section 3(1)(r) of the SC-ST Act would
reveal that for constituting an offence thereunder, it has to
be established that the accused intentionally insults or
intimidates with intent to humiliate a member of a
Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe in any place within
public view. Similarly, for constituting an offence under
Section 3(1)(s) of the SC-ST Act, it will be necessary that
the accused abuses any member of a Scheduled Caste or a
Scheduled Tribe by caste name in any place within public
view.
10. The term “any place within public view” initially came
up for consideration before this Court in the case of Swaran
Singh and others v. State through Standing Counsel and
another, (2008) 8 SCC 435. This Court in the case of Hitesh
Verma v. State of Uttarakhand and another, (2020) 10 SCC
710 referred to Swaran Singh (supra) and reiterated the
legal position as under:
“14. Another key ingredient of the provision is insult or
intimidation in “any place within public view”. What is to be
regarded as “place in public view” had come up for
consideration before this Court in the judgment reported as
Swaran Singh v. State [Swaran Singh v. State, (2008) 8 SCC
435 : (2008) 3 SCC (Cri) 527]. The Court had drawn
distinction between the expression “public place” and “in
any place within public view”. It was held that if an offencePage 21 of 27
Uploaded by V.R. PANCHAL(HC00171) on Thu Jul 16 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 16 21:07:21 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATIONR/CR.A/2021/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/07/2026
undefined
is committed outside the building e.g. in a lawn outside a
house, and the lawn can be seen by someone from the
road or lane outside the boundary wall, then the lawn
would certainly be a place within the public view. On the
contrary, if the remark is made inside a building, but some
members of the public are there (not merely relatives or
friends) then it would not be an offence since it is not in the
public view (sic) [Ed. : This sentence appears to be contrary
to what is stated below in the extract from Swaran Singh,
(2008) 8 SCC 435, at p. 736d-e, and in the application of
this principle in para 15, below:”Also, even if the remark is
made inside a building, but some members of the public
are there (not merely relatives or friends) then also it
would be an offence since it is in the public view.”] . The
Court held as under : (SCC pp. 443-44, para 28)“28. It has been alleged in the FIR that Vinod Nagar, the
first informant, was insulted by Appellants 2 and 3 (by
calling him a “chamar”) when he stood near the car which
was parked at the gate of the premises. In our opinion, this
was certainly a place within public view, since the gate of a
house is certainly a place within public view. It could have
been a different matter had the alleged offence been
committed inside a building, and also was not in the public
view. However, if the offence is committed outside the
building e.g. in a lawn outside a house, and the lawn can
be seen by someone from the road or lane outside the
boundary wall, the lawn would certainly be a place within
the public view. Also, even if the remark is made inside a
building, but some members of the public are there (not
merely relatives or friends) then also it would be an offence
since it is in the public view. We must, therefore, not
confuse the expression “place within public view” with the
expression “public place”. A place can be a private place
but yet within the public view. On the other hand, a public
place would ordinarily mean a place which is owned or
leased by the Government or the municipality (or other
local body) or gaon sabha or an instrumentality of the
State, and not by private persons or private bodies.”
(emphasis in original)”
11. It could thus be seen that, to be a place ‘within public
view’, the place should be open where the members of the
public can witness or hear the utterance made by the
accused to the victim. If the alleged offence takes place
within the four corners of the wall where members of the
public are not present, then it cannot be said that it hasPage 22 of 27
Uploaded by V.R. PANCHAL(HC00171) on Thu Jul 16 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 16 21:07:21 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATIONR/CR.A/2021/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/07/2026
undefined
taken place at a place within public view.
16. This Court is aware about the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court and the same principle has been reiterated time and again in
subsequent decisions. Therefore, under the circumstances, I am of the
opinion that the trial Court has not committed any error of facts and
law in passing the judgment and order of acquittal. It is hereby noted
that since the presumption of innocence was already established in
favour of the accused before the trial Court and now the double
presumption in favour of the accused. In view of the aforesaid facts
and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that the appeal
being meritless deserves to be dismissed.
17. It is well settled by catena of decisions that 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
by the trial Court.
18. 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
Page 23 of 27
Uploaded by V.R. PANCHAL(HC00171) on Thu Jul 16 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 16 21:07:21 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2021/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/07/2026
undefined
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 they are charged.
19. 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 in the case of 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 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.
Hence, we are in complete agreement with the findings recorded by
the trial Court.
Page 24 of 27
Uploaded by V.R. PANCHAL(HC00171) on Thu Jul 16 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 16 21:07:21 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2021/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/07/2026
undefined
20. 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”, “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 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.
Page 25 of 27
Uploaded by V.R. PANCHAL(HC00171) on Thu Jul 16 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 16 21:07:21 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2021/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/07/2026
undefined
(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.”
21. 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
alleged crime. Therefore, the accused cannot be convicted on the
evidence on record.
22. 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 them. 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
Page 26 of 27
Uploaded by V.R. PANCHAL(HC00171) on Thu Jul 16 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 16 21:07:21 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2021/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/07/2026
undefined
to be dismissed.
23. 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)
V.R. PANCHAL
Page 27 of 27
Uploaded by V.R. PANCHAL(HC00171) on Thu Jul 16 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 16 21:07:21 IST 2026
