STATE OF GUJARAT vs BHARAT RAMSHI PIPROTAR

R/CR.A/2699/2008 (GJHC240428292008) JUDGMENT DATED: 02/09/2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2699 of 2008

FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:


HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK

==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
BHARAT RAMSHI PIPROTAR
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS JYOTI BHATT ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the Appellant(s)
No. 1
NON BAILABLE WARRANT UNSERVED for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s)
No. 1
RULE UNSERVED for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M.
PRACHCHHAK

Date : 02/09/2026

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 30.07.2008 passed by the learned Principal
District and Sessions Judge, Porbandar (hereinafter be referred to as
“the trial Court”) in Sessions Case No.7 of 2008, whereby the trial
Court has acquitted the original accused (respondent herein) from the
offences punishable under Sections 397 of the Indian Penal Code
(hereinafter referred to as “IPC”) and Section 135 of the Bombay
Police Act.
Page 1 of 12
Uploaded by ANUSRI VASU(HC02352) on Tue Sep 08 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 09 00:05:46 IST 2026

R/CR.A/2699/2008 (GJHC240428292008) JUDGMENT DATED: 02/09/2026
2. Short facts of the prosecution case are that on 10.01.2008, at
about 16:00 hours, the present accused went to the shop of the
complainant – Sanjay Bhimabhai Khavdu, Harsiddhi Mobiles situated
at Prabhu Complex, Khakhchawk area, Porbandar where he bought a
mobile phone - Nokia 5300. That, since the accused did not have
sufficient money, he asked the complainant to accompany him to
obtain the money from a person known to him residing at village:
Kolikada. That, the complainant went on motorcycle Hero Honda
Splendor bearing registration No. GJ-11-3130 accompanied by the
accused to Kolikada via Adityana Road. That, when they reached near
the outskirts of Kolikada, the accused stopped the motor cycle and
thereafter pointed a knife at the complainant and looted the motor
cycle valued of Rs. 15,000/- and the Nokia mobile phone valued at
Rs.5000/- and ran away from the place of the incident. Hence, a
complaint was lodged by the complainant before Udhyognagar Police
Station for the aforesaid offences. On completion of investigation,
charge sheet was submitted into the Court of learned J.M.F.C.,
Junagadh.
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 him, the accused has 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, Porbandar.
3. I t appears from the records that to prove the case, the
prosecution has examined 10 witnesses and also produced relevant
documentary evidences.
Page 2 of 12
Uploaded by ANUSRI VASU(HC02352) on Tue Sep 08 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 09 00:05:46 IST 2026

R/CR.A/2699/2008 (GJHC240428292008) JUDGMENT DATED: 02/09/2026
4. 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.
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 him.
6. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment
and order of acquittal the appellant – State of Gujarat has preferred
this appeal.
7. Heard Ms. Jyoti Bhatt learned Additional Public Prosecutor for
the appellant – State of Gujarat at length. Though non-bailable
warrant issued against the respondent, the same remains
unexecuted.
8. Ms. Bhatt , 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 has submitted that the offence under section
397 of IPC is serious in nature and constitutes a heinous crime and
without considering the seriousness of the incident and the manner in
which the offence was committed, the trial Court, while passing the
impugned judgment, has committed a serious error of law and facts.
She has submitted that merely because the complainant had certain
Page 3 of 12
Uploaded by ANUSRI VASU(HC02352) on Tue Sep 08 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 09 00:05:46 IST 2026

R/CR.A/2699/2008 (GJHC240428292008) JUDGMENT DATED: 02/09/2026
antecedents and was involved, along with his brother and mother, in
an offence relating to the sale and storage of liquor, his evidence
could not have been brushed aside merely on the ground that there
was a likelihood that the accused, being acquainted with the
complainant and having a dispute with him, thus, a false complaint
had been lodged against the accused and therefore, the trial court's
observation to that effect is erroneous, illegal, and unjust. Ms. Bhatt ,
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. Bhatt , 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
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 According to Ms. Bhatt , learned Additional Public Prosecutor, the
Page 4 of 12
Uploaded by ANUSRI VASU(HC02352) on Tue Sep 08 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 09 00:05:46 IST 2026

R/CR.A/2699/2008 (GJHC240428292008) JUDGMENT DATED: 02/09/2026
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.
9. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and perused
the materials on record. On perusal of the impugned judgment and
order of acquittal passed by the trial Court, the questions that 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. Upon perusal of the records it appears that on 10.01.2008, at
about 16:00 hours, the complainant, was present at his workplace,
namely, Harsidhi Mobile Shop, situated at Prabhu Complex, Khakh
Chowk, Porbandar. At that time, the respondent-accused visited the
shop and intended to purchase a mobile phone – Nokia Model No.
5300 and since he did not have sufficient money, he asked the
complainant to accompany him to obtain the money from a person
known to him residing at Kolikhada. It appears that the complainant
accompanied the respondent on the motorcycle of the shop owner,
namely, Bipinbhai Laljibhai Chandegra, bearing registration no. GJ-11-
3130, and proceeded towards Kolikhada via Adityana Road. It appears
that when they reached near the outskirts of Kolikhada, the
Page 5 of 12
Uploaded by ANUSRI VASU(HC02352) on Tue Sep 08 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 09 00:05:46 IST 2026

R/CR.A/2699/2008 (GJHC240428292008) JUDGMENT DATED: 02/09/2026
respondent stopped the vehicle and got down from the motorcycle
and thereafter allegedly pointed a knife at the complainant, looted the
motorcycle and the Nokia mobile phone, and ran away from the place
of the incident. Therefore, the complainant lodged a complaint
against the present respondent for the alleged aforesaid offences.
11. Upon perusal of the depositions of the witnesses, particularly
the evidence of the complainant, PW-1, at Exhibit 7, it appears that
when he was cross-examined by the respondent himself, who had not
engaged any advocate, the complainant admitted that the respondent
had not caused him any injury. It appears that the accused had stated
that he was working on a truck and that the truck owner would make
the payment for the mobile phone. Therefore, the complainant
voluntarily proceeded with the respondent on the motorcycle
belonging to the shop owner and his cousin brother. As the truck
owner was not present at Kolikhada, they proceeded towards
Junagadh to collect the money and after requesting the complainant,
perhaps he himself handed over the vehicle and the mobile phone to
the respondent. Although this suggestion was made to the
complainant, he has denied that suggestion. It appears that the
respondent, in his statement under Section 313 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, specifically stated that he had informed the
complainant that the money would be obtained from the truck owner
from Junagadh and thereafter the payment for the mobile phone
would be made. It appears that there was no quarrel or physical
assault made by the respondent upon the complainant and there is
also no allegation that any injury was caused to the complainant with
the knife. Upon perusal of the recovery panchnama, it appears that
the police recovered the alleged weapon, namely, a knife. However,
the description of the knife given by the complainant at the time of
Page 6 of 12
Uploaded by ANUSRI VASU(HC02352) on Tue Sep 08 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 09 00:05:46 IST 2026

R/CR.A/2699/2008 (GJHC240428292008) JUDGMENT DATED: 02/09/2026
lodging the complaint does not match with the weapon recovered.
The trial Court has observed that it was a newly purchased knife and
was not the knife as alleged by the complainant. It was, in fact, an
ordinary small knife used for cutting vegetables.
12. So far as the history given by the complainant is concerned, it
appears that the complainant and his brother were engaged in the
business of selling liquor and, in that connection they had been
arrested and were lodged in the Central Jail, Porbandar. At that time,
the respondent was also arrested by the Porbandar police for offences
punishable under the Prohibition Act and the IPC and was lodged in
the Central Jail, Porbandar and thus, they had met each other as
inmates of the jail. After being released from jail, the respondent
again visited the house of the complainant and at that time, a quarrel
took place between the respondent and the mother of the
complainant and because of that reason perhaps the false complaint
was lodged against the present respondent. So considering the
background of the accused and the complainant, there is a likelihood
that the present complaint was filed by the complainant out of
vengeance only. It is relevant to note that if the respondent had
actually looted the mobile phone and motorcycle with the intention
alleged by the prosecution, he would not have continued using the
mobile phone. It appears that the respondent continued to use the
mobile phone and did not switch it off. The accused did not even
change the SIM card. The respondent was arrested near Sindhu Sagar
Hotel at Vanthli, while proceeding towards Junagadh, and the
motorcycle and the muddamal articles, including the Nokia mobile
phone were recovered from his possession. The respondent furnished
an explanation to the Investigating Officer that he intended to visit
Junagadh to meet the truck owner for the purpose of obtaining money
Page 7 of 12
Uploaded by ANUSRI VASU(HC02352) on Tue Sep 08 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 09 00:05:46 IST 2026

R/CR.A/2699/2008 (GJHC240428292008) JUDGMENT DATED: 02/09/2026
and making payment to the complainant for the purchase of the said
Nokia mobile phone.
13. Under these circumstances, the trial Court, while recording its
reasons, dealt with the facts and evidence in detail and recorded its
conclusion in paragraph 17 of the impugned judgment. The
prosecution thus miserably failed to establish that the offence
punishable under Section 397 of the IPC was made out against the
respondent. The prosecution also failed to produce any cogent and
convincing evidence before the trial Court. Therefore, in the
circumstances of the case, the trial Court rightly passed the impugned
order of acquittal. In view of the above, I am of the opinion that the
trial Court has not committed any error of facts and law in passing the
impugned judgment and order and there is no any illegality and
infirmity found in the judgment and order.
14. 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
by the trial Court.
15. Further, if two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis
of the evidence on record, the Appellate Court should not disturb the
Page 8 of 12
Uploaded by ANUSRI VASU(HC02352) on Tue Sep 08 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 09 00:05:46 IST 2026

R/CR.A/2699/2008 (GJHC240428292008) JUDGMENT DATED: 02/09/2026
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 they are charged.
16. 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
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
Page 9 of 12
Uploaded by ANUSRI VASU(HC02352) on Tue Sep 08 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 09 00:05:46 IST 2026

R/CR.A/2699/2008 (GJHC240428292008) JUDGMENT DATED: 02/09/2026
particularly, in paragraph Nos. 37 to 40. Hence, I am in complete
agreement with the findings recorded by the trial Court.
17. 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
Page 10 of 12
Uploaded by ANUSRI VASU(HC02352) on Tue Sep 08 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 09 00:05:46 IST 2026

R/CR.A/2699/2008 (GJHC240428292008) JUDGMENT DATED: 02/09/2026
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.”
18. 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.
19. 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
Page 11 of 12
Uploaded by ANUSRI VASU(HC02352) on Tue Sep 08 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 09 00:05:46 IST 2026

R/CR.A/2699/2008 (GJHC240428292008) JUDGMENT DATED: 02/09/2026
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.
20. In view of the above, t h e 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)
ANUSRI
Page 12 of 12
Uploaded by ANUSRI VASU(HC02352) on Tue Sep 08 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 09 00:05:46 IST 2026