Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 1507 (GUJ)

State of Gujarat v. Patel Ramabhai Baldevbhai

2016-07-27

R.P.DHOLARIA

body2016
JUDGMENT : R.P. Dholaria, J. 1. This is an appeal preferred by the State of Gujarat, under Section 378(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 4.11.2006, recorded by the learned Special Judge (Atrocity), Mehsana, in Special Atrocity Case No. 32 of 2006. 2. It is the case of the prosecution that on 28.2.2006, the complainant-Kantibhai Virabhai Parmar lodged a complaint stating that on 27.2.2006 at about 8.30 p.m., complainant went to attend meeting of Milk Produce Co-operative Society of his village. In the aforesaid meeting, President, Vice President and Secretary, etc. of the Society were present and several resolutions were passed according to agenda but the complainant objected to some of the resolution, which angered the President-Maneklal Patel, Member-Ramubhai Patel, Gandalal Patel and Bharatbhai Patel and they started to give filthy abuses to the complainant concerning his caste. At that time, one Joitaram Prajapati intervened and told the complainant to leave the place of meeting. The complainant went out from the meeting and at that time, Ramubhai Baldevbhai Patel threatened to kill him. Accordingly, a complaint for the offences punishable under Sections 504, 506(2) of the IPC and under Section 3(1)(x) of the Schedule Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, was filed before Bavlu Police Station. 3. In pursuance of the aforesaid complaint, the Police recorded the statements of the witnesses and after completion of investigation, filed charge-sheet which came to be committed to the learned trial Court. 3.1 At the end of the trial, after recording the statement of the accused under section 313of the Cr.P.C and after hearing the arguments on behalf of the prosecution and the defence, the 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 has 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. 6. Mr. 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. 6. Mr. Pujari, learned APP appearing for the 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 the judgment and order of the trial Court is against the provisions of law as the trial Court has not properly considered the evidence led by the prosecution and looking to the provisions of law itself, it is established that the prosecution has proved all the ingredients of alleged charges against the present respondents. Learned APP has also taken this court through the oral as well as the entire documentary evidence. It is further submitted by learned APP that the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the learned trial Judge is based on inferences not warranted by facts of the case and also on presumption not permitted by law. It is also submitted by him that the learned trial Judge has not properly appreciated oral as well as documentary evidence and thereby committed error by acquitting the respondents for the alleged offences under Section 504, 506(2) of the IPC and under Section 3(1) (x) of the Schedule Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 which requires to be reversed as such and the accused are required to be convicted. Mr. Pujari, learned APP has also drawn attention of this Court to the impugned judgment as well as record and proceeding of learned trial Court and stated that the order of acquittal recorded by the learned trial Court is required to be converted into conviction as such. 7. On the other hand, Mr. Dipak Patel, learned advocate appearing for the respondents has argued that the learned trial Court has elaborately dealt with the evidence on record and rightly recorded the finding and acquitted the accused from the charges leveled against them. He has further argued that there is no iota of evidence to connect the present respondents with the crime. Dipak Patel, learned advocate appearing for the respondents has argued that the learned trial Court has elaborately dealt with the evidence on record and rightly recorded the finding and acquitted the accused from the charges leveled against them. He has further argued that there is no iota of evidence to connect the present respondents with the crime. He has further argued that the prosecution has failed to prove the case against the present accused and consequently therefore, finding recorded by the learned trial Court is in consonance with the evidence available on record which calls for no interference. 8. This Court has heard Mr. L.R. Pujari, learned APP for the appellant-State and Mr. Dipak Patel, learned advocate appearing for the respondents-accused. 9. Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties and having gone through the impugned judgment as well as record and proceedings of learned trial Court, on overall analysis of the evidence on record, as per the prosecution case, on 27th February, 2006, the complainant as well as respondents were attending the meeting of Milk Produce Co-operative Society of their village. In the aforesaid meeting President, Vice President and Secretary, etc. of the Society were present and several resolutions were passed according to agenda but the complainant objected to some of the resolution. Therefore, an altercation took place amongst them and thereby respondents uttered derogatory words concerning the caste of the complainant and they told him that if he would not sign upon the resolution, then he would have to leave the place of meeting and they also threatened him to kill. 10. In order to bring home the guilt, the prosecution has examined 6 witnesses and also produced several documentary evidences on record. Out of the 6 witnesses, only complainant and eyewitness-Joitaram Prajapati have supported the case of the prosecution. PW-1-Kantibhai Virabhai Parmar has deposed that he hold the post of member in Milk Produce Co-operative Society and he belongs to Scheduled Caste community. He has further argued that on 27th February, 2006, a meeting was held by the President and he along with the other respondents appeared in the said meeting. PW-1-Kantibhai Virabhai Parmar has deposed that he hold the post of member in Milk Produce Co-operative Society and he belongs to Scheduled Caste community. He has further argued that on 27th February, 2006, a meeting was held by the President and he along with the other respondents appeared in the said meeting. He further states that President as well as other members had passed a resolution and after passing the resolution, the complainant was directed to sign upon the resolution but he had raised objection and due to which, respondents uttered derogatory words concerning his caste and insulted him. Thereafter, he was directed to leave the place otherwise he would be killed. However, in the cross-examination, he has admitted that in the village, there are nearly 50 to 60 families belonging to his community. He has also admitted that in the complaint, he did not mention that President-Maneklal Patel uttered derogatory words concerning his caste. He has further admitted that he is member in the Co-operative Society and all resolution were passed by majority and in accordance with law. PW-2-Joitaram Prajapati has deposed that on 27th February, 2006, he attended the meeting and the respondents were also there and as the complainant raised an objection, the respondents started to speak derogatory words concerning his caste. However, in the cross-examination, he has admitted that he did not stated to the police that the resolution book was snatched from the hand of the complainant. He has further admitted that entire proceedings and agenda of the meeting was in accordance with law and he as well as the complainant signed upon it. PW-6-Mayanksinh Chavda-Deputy Superintendent of Police has deposed that he has investigated the case, recorded the statements of several persons, arrested the present respondents and also filed the charge sheet. However, in his cross-examination, he has admitted that he has recorded statements of almost 11 persons and some persons have not supported the case of the prosecution, therefore, they have not been examined. He has further admitted that he has recorded the statement of Secretary of the Society but he is not shown as witness. Hence, during the course of the trial, contradictions has been established in his deposition. 11. He has further admitted that he has recorded the statement of Secretary of the Society but he is not shown as witness. Hence, during the course of the trial, contradictions has been established in his deposition. 11. On overall analysis of the evidence on record, it emerges out that on 27th February, 2006 at about 8.30 p.m., a meeting of Executive Committee was held and as per the agenda, some resolutions were passed by majority but at the time of taking signature over the resolutions, the complainant refused to sign upon it and due to which, quarrel took place amongst them. So far as the allegations made by the complainant as well as eyewitness that the respondents spoke derogatory words concerning the caste of the complainant is concerned, the same is not proved from the evidences available on record. The complainant and eyewitness have not clearly mentioned the name of the respondent who spoke derogatory words. During the trial, the complainant and eyewitness made improvements and contradictions, which is fatal for the prosecution case. 12. So far as the allegations as regards the offences alleged to have been committed under the provisions of Indian Penal Code are concerned, no evidence has been brought on record to connect the accused with crime. So far as the offences under Section 3(1) (x) of the Schedule Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 is concerned, the prosecution has failed to bring on record that the respondents spoke derogatory words concerning the caste of the complainant and the learned trial Court has elaborately dealt with this issue and recorded the appropriate reasons in the judgment, which calls for no interference. 13. 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 reasoning’s when the reasons assigned by the Court below are found to be just and proper. 14. In above view of the matter, this Court is of the considered opinion that learned trial court was completely justified in acquitting the respondents from the charges leveled against them. 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 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. 15. 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.