Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 1532 (GUJ)

State of Gujarat v. Kanubhai Dholidas Patel

2016-07-28

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 28.6.2005, recorded by the Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court No. 5, Gandhinagar, in Special Case (Atrocity) No. 50 of 2004. 2. It is the case of the prosecution that complainant-Manilal Govindbhai Parmar was residing in Indiranagar Hutment area, Sector 24, Gandhinagar and he was engaged in labour work of masonry. It is further the case of the prosecution that on 20.1.2004, the complainant went for masonry work at BSF area alongwith one Rajubhai and others. At the work place, complainant felt to pass urine and he went for the purpose of urination. The contractor-Harsha Builders asked him about leaving the place and upon knowing the reason, he spoke derogatory words concerning his caste and on opposing by the complainant, the contractor assaulted the complainant and threatened to kill him. Accordingly, a complaint for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 324, 504 and 506(2) of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 3(1)(x) of the Schedule Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, was filed before Dabhoda 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 313 of 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. Dabhi, learned APP appearing for the State has reiterated and urged the grounds mentioned in the memo of appeal. 6. Mr. Dabhi, 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 respondent. 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 respondent for the alleged offences under Section 323, 324, 504 and 506(2) of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 3(1)(x) of the Schedule Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 which requires to be reversed as such and the accused is required to be convicted. He has further argued that so far as assault over the complainant is concerned, the complainant as well as his friend Rajubhai have supported the case of the prosecution but the learned trial Court did not believe the evidences of complainant and his friend. Mr. Dabhi, 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. This Court has heard Mr. L.B. Dabhi, learned APP for the appellant-State. Though served, none appears on behalf of respondent. 8. 7. This Court has heard Mr. L.B. Dabhi, learned APP for the appellant-State. Though served, none appears on behalf of respondent. 8. 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 indisputably as per the prosecution case, on 20th January, 2004, when the complainant was working as a labour upon the construction site which was going on in BSF area at that time, while the complainant was proceeding for passing urine at that time, the respondent spoke derogatory words concerning his caste and assaulted him with wooden log and at that time, his friend Rajubhai rescued him and thereby the respondent committed offences punishable under Sections 323, 324, 504 and 506(2) of the Indian Penal Code and as the respondent spoke derogatory words concerning caste of complainant and thereby, he committed offence punishable under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. 9. In order to bring home the guilt, the prosecution has examined 10 witnesses and also produced various documentary evidences. P.W. - 1-Manilal Govind Parmar has deposed that on 20th January, 2004 when he was working as labour upon construction site which was going on at BSF area, at that time, in order to proceed for passing urine, the respondent refused to go for urination and assaulted upon him by wooden log and threatened to kill him. In his cross-examination, he has admitted that Rajubhai is his friend and at the time of incident he was with him and there were several persons also. He has further admitted that he is working with his friend Rajubhai for about 10 years. P.W. - 3 Rajubhai has also deposed in the similar lines. In his cross-examination, he has deposed that there were about 50 labourers, who were working at the same place. P.W. - 7- Sitaram has deposed that the investigation officer of this case retired on 30th January, 2004 and the investigation was handed over to him and he has carried out remaining investigation and chargesheet was also filed by him. In his cross-examination, he has admitted that the complainant had not made any allegation regarding provisions of Atrocities Act. P.W. - 7- Sitaram has deposed that the investigation officer of this case retired on 30th January, 2004 and the investigation was handed over to him and he has carried out remaining investigation and chargesheet was also filed by him. In his cross-examination, he has admitted that the complainant had not made any allegation regarding provisions of Atrocities Act. He has also admitted that the complainant had not narrated anything that the accused uttered derogatory words concerning his caste. 10. On going through the materials available on record, except the complainant and his friend, none of the independent witness has supported the case of the prosecution. So far as the depositions of his friend-Rajubhai is concerned, during the course of the trial, he has made lot of contradictions and improvements and so far as the allegations as regards the offences alleged to have committed under the provisions of Indian Penal Code are concerned, nothing reveals from the evidences on record that the respondent has assaulted upon the complainant as mentioned in the complaint and 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 Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 is concerned, nothing reveals from the evidence on record that during the course of altercation, the respondent has spoken derogatory words concerning the caste of the complainant. 11. 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. 12. In above view of the matter, this Court is of the considered opinion that learned trial court was completely justified in acquitting the respondent 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. 13. In the result, this appeal fails and accordingly, it is dismissed. Bail bond, if any, stands cancelled. 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. 13. 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.