Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 1493 (GUJ)

State of Gujarat v. Manubhai Balubhai Patanvadiya

2016-07-26

R.P.DHOLARIA

body2016
JUDGMENT : R.P. Dholaria, J. 1. The appellant State of Gujarat has preferred the present appeal under section 378(1) (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 8.9.2006 rendered by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 4, Bharuch in Special Atrocity Case No. 30 of 2005. 2. The short facts giving rise to the present appeal are that on 23.7.2005 at about 7.00 hours in the evening, the respondents assembled at village Kobala at the house of Chhaganbhai Becharbhai Parmar i.e. complainant and picked up quarrel and uttered derogatory words concerning to the caste of the complainant and threatened him to kill if the land is not returned to the accused. Hence, the complaint came to be lodged against the respondents accused. 3. In pursuance of the complaint, the Investigating Officer carried out the investigation and filed the charge-sheet against the respondents accused. The charge was framed against the accused. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed to be tried. 3.1 In order to bring home the guilt, the prosecution has examined 16 witnesses and also produced documentary evidences such as original complaint Exh.10, panchnama of scene of offence Exh.16, map of scene of offence Exh.34 etc. 3.2 At the end of the trial, after recording the statements of the accused under section 313 of the CrPC and hearing the arguments on behalf of the prosecution and the defence, learned trial Court delivered the judgment and order, as stated above. 4. Being aggrieved by the same, the appellant State has preferred the aforesaid Criminal Appeal before this Court. 5. By way of preferring the present appeal, the appellant has mainly contended that learned trial Court has failed to appreciate the evidence on record and wrongly recorded the order of acquittal. It is further contended that learned trial Judge has not appreciated the evidence on record in its proper perspective and in fact, there was no appreciation of evidence so far and hence, the impugned judgment and order of acquittal is required to be reversed, as such. 5.1 Mr. L.R. Pujari, learned APP appearing for the appellant State has reiterated and urged the grounds mentioned in the memo of appeal. 5.1 Mr. L.R. Pujari, learned APP appearing for the appellant State has reiterated and urged the grounds mentioned in the memo of appeal. Learned APP has taken this Court through the paper-book and evidence on record and argued that learned trial Court failed to appreciate the evidence on record though ample evidence is available on record for the alleged offences. In his submission, therefore, learned trial Court ought to have convicted the accused and hence, learned trial Court has failed to appreciate the evidence on record and wrongly recorded the judgment of acquittal which is required to be reversed and the respondents are required to be convicted, as such. 6. On the other-hand, Mr. S.K. Bukhari, learned Advocate for the respondents accused has taken this Court through the entire evidence on record and submitted that the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned trial Judge is just and proper. Mr. Bukhari further submitted that there is no iota of evidence available against the present accused. He submitted that no such incident was occurred while they gathered for arriving at the compromise as regards to agricultural land and the entire case is concocted by the complainant and wrongfully implicated the present respondents with the crime in question. He, therefore, submitted that in view of the evidence on record, it cannot be said that the learned trial Judge has committed any error in passing the impugned order acquitting the accused, and therefore, the present appeal deserves to be dismissed. 7. This Court has heard Mr. L.R. Pujari, learned APP for the appellant State and Mr. S.K. Bukhari, learned advocate for the respondents accused. 8. This Court has minutely gone through the impugned judgment rendered by learned trial Court as well as the evidence on record in the nature of paper book. As per the prosecution case, on 23.7.2005 at about 7.00 hours in the evening, the respondents assembled at village Kobala at the house of Chhaganbhai and picked up quarrel and uttered derogatory words concerning to the caste of the complainant and threatened him to kill if the land is not returned to the accused and, thereby the accused committed the offences punishable under sections 453, 323, 504, 506(2) read with section 114 of IPC and section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989. 8.1 On conjoint reading of the evidence of the witnesses, it appears that the place of incident is different and even the medical evidence is also not getting corroboration from the evidence as regards to injury over the person of the complainant found by the Doctor who treated him at the Community Health Center. The said Doctor opined that the incident is dated 23.7.2005, the complaint was filed on the following day; the complainant approached him three days thereafter and the injury over his persons was found to be superficial injury. So far as the allegation as regards to uttering derogatory words concerning to the caste of the complainant is concerned, there is no uniformity in the allegation made by the complainant. The version of the witnesses before the police as well as before learned trial Court is quite different. In this view of the matter, the prosecution has miserably failed to prove that the respondents have uttered derogatory words concerning to the caste of the complainant. 8.2 Under the circumstances, learned trial Court has rightly acquitted the respondents accused considering the nature of evidence on record. There is no iota of evidence on record to link the accused with the crime in question. 9. It is also a settled legal position that in acquittal appeals, the appellate Court is not required to rewrite the judgment or to give fresh reasonings, when the reasons assigned by the Court below are found to be just and proper. 10. In above view of the matter, this Court is of the considered opinion that learned trial court was completely justified in acquitting the respondents of the charges leveled against him. This Court finds that the findings recorded by learned trial court are absolutely just and proper and in recording the said findings, no illegality or infirmity has been committed by it. This Court is, therefore, in complete agreement with the findings, ultimate conclusion and the resultant order of acquittal recorded by learned court below and hence finds no reasons to interfere with the same. 11. In the result, this appeal fails and accordingly, it is dismissed. Bail bond, if any, stands cancelled. R & P to be sent back to the trial Court, forthwith.