Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 1555 (GUJ)

State of Gujarat v. Sandip Narsibhai Patel

2016-07-29

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 11.8.2006, recorded by the Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court No. 6, Ahmedabad (Rural) Navrangpura, in Special Atrocity Case No. 18 of 2005. 2. It is the case of the prosecution that on 3.11.2004, at about 12:30 hours, the complainant and his father went to site viz. Alankar Apartment where accused-Sandipbhai Narsinhbhai and some unknown persons humiliated the complainant's father by speaking derogatory words concerning his caste and also threatened him by saying if you come here again he would be fallen down by them from 5th floor and the accused persons snatched Rs. 4,700/-, one parker pen and golden chain weighing 20 gm. Again on 23.11.2004, the father of the complainant went to site where accused and some unknown persons threatened his father and humiliated the complainant's father by speaking derogatory words concerning his caste. Accordingly, a complaint for the offences punishable under Sections 506 (2), 384 read with Section 114 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 Vejalpur 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 CrPC 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 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 506 (2), 384 read with Section 114 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 though accused-Sandip Patel and some unknown persons humiliated the complainant's father by speaking derogatory words concerning his caste and also threatened him and the accused persons snatched some cash, golden articles, but the Trial court did not believe upon the evidence of the prosecution and wrongfully acquitted the accused. 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. 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. Himansu Padhya, learned advocate for the respondent 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 levelled against him. He has further argued that except complainant and his sone, none of the witness has supported the case of the prosecution. He has further argued that neither the complainant nor his son was victim of incident. He has further argued that nothing reveals from the evidence that the present respondent has assaulted and spoken derogatory words concerning the caste of complainant. He has further argued that in the complaint, it is mentioned that except the present respondent, some other persons involved in the accident but they are not chargesheet as such. He has further argued that the prosecution has failed to prove the case against the present accused and the learned trial Court has rightly acquitted the respondent, which calls for no interference. 8. This Court has heard Mr. L.R. Pujari, learned APP for the appellant-State and Mr. Himansu Padhya, learned advocate for the respondent. 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 indisputably as per the prosecution case, on 3.11.2004 at about 12:30 hours, when the complainant and his father visited site viz. Alankar Apartment situated in survey No. 765(2) and 766(1) nearby railway crossing, Vejalpur, at that time, the present respondent uttered derogatory words concerning their caste and community and also threatened them to throw them from the 5th floor and snatched Rs. 4,700/-, one parker pen and golden chain weighing 20 gm. from them and thereby committed offences punishable under Sections 384, 506 (2) read with Section 114 of the IPC as well as respondent spoke derogatory words concerning caste of complainant and thereby committed offence punishable under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. 10. from them and thereby committed offences punishable under Sections 384, 506 (2) read with Section 114 of the IPC as well as respondent spoke derogatory words concerning caste of complainant and thereby committed offence punishable under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. 10. In order to bring home the guilt, the prosecution has examined 9 witnesses and also produced various documentary evidences. PW-1-Anil Makwana has deposed that when he visited the site, at that time, the present respondent as well as some other persons assaulted upon him and spoke derogatory words concerning his caste and threatened to kill as well as snatched cash, one parker pen and golden chain. However, in his cross-examination, he has admitted that there were five assailants and who spoke derogatory words, he did not knew and even he could say as to who snatched the aforesaid articles and who threatened him. PW-2-Tejabhi Makwana-eyewitness has also deposed in the similar lines. During the course of cross-examination of aforesaid both witnesses, the prosecution has also brought on record that there was a civil dispute and for which the other proceedings were initiated before the competent Court. On the other hand, other independent witnesses as well as panches have not supported the case of the prosecution. 11. 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 complainant and his son. As per the prosecution version, the respondent and other persons assaulted upon the complainant but the prosecution has failed to prove any injury upon the body of the complainant. 12. 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. 13. 12. 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. 13. 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. 14. 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.