Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 1708 (GUJ)

State of Gujarat v. Ramanbhai Kasibhai Patel

2016-08-10

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 12.12.2005 rendered by learned Presiding Officer, 9th Fast Track Court, Nadiad in Special (SC/ST) Case No. 12 of 2004. 2. The short facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the respondent accused is a Sarpanch of Sojitra Gram Panchayat and therefore on 31.12.2002 a meeting was arranged on budget. It is alleged that the complainant as well as PW Nos. 6 to 13 are the members of the panchayat and at about 16.15 hours, during discussion, the complainant has made submission on behalf of Harijan community, so, respondent got enraged and gave filthy abuses and also administered threats to the complainant to kill her. Hence, the complaint came to be lodged against the respondent accused. 3. In pursuance of the complaint, the Investigating Officer carried out the investigation and filed the charge sheet against the respondent 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 11 witnesses and also produced documentary evidences. 3.2 At the end of the trial, after recording the statement of the accused under section 313of the Cr.P.C. 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. Dabhi, learned APP appearing for the appellant State has reiterated and urged the grounds mentioned in the memo of appeal. 5.1 Mr. Dabhi, 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 has failed to appreciate the evidence in its proper perspective and wrongfully granted benefit of acquittal to the accused though there is ample evidence available on record to connect the accused with the crime in question. He submitted that though the complainant as well as eye witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution, learned trial Court has not appreciated the evidence in its proper perspective. In his submission, 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. Tejas Barot, learned Advocate for the respondent 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. Barot further submitted that the present respondent himself has lodged the complaint against one Jatin Rameshbhai Patel and Gopalbhai Thakor for assaulting as well as threatening to kill him and as a counter-blast, the complaint in question has been concocted. He submitted that the certificate at Exh. 44 clearly indicates that the complaint against the present respondent is concocted in order to settle the political score. 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.B. Dabhi, learned APP for the appellant State and Mr. Tejas Barot, learned advocate for the respondent 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. On going through the complaint at Exh. 11, it appears that the complainant has narrated that she is resident of Sojitra and she is a member of Gram Panchayat and the respondent is the Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat. On going through the complaint at Exh. 11, it appears that the complainant has narrated that she is resident of Sojitra and she is a member of Gram Panchayat and the respondent is the Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat. The complainant has stated that at about 3.00 O'clock, the meeting was convened for discussing budget and while discussing the budget, there was altercation with the respondent and the respondent abused the complainant concerning her caste and said her to go out from the meeting; the incident occurred around at 4.15 hours. However, in her deposition, the complainant has made lots of improvements as if the present respondent actually assaulted her and driven out from the meeting initially and thereafter the meeting could not be proceeded. In her cross examination, the complainant has admitted that while she was proceeding to lodge the complaint, she was accompanied by Jatinbhai and Vanrajbhai Barot. The witness also admitted that she as well as other her supporters have also moved motion of no confidence three - four times prior to the present complaint. The witness also admitted that there was political rivalry against the present respondent accused. 8.1 PW 2 Bhupendrakumar Vastupal, PW 3 - Maltiben Pravinbhai Patel, PW 5 - Vanrajbhai Ranchhodbhai Barot, PW 6 - Shilpaben Bhavneshbhai as well as PW 7 - Bhartiben Arunbhai have supported the case of the prosecution and deposed in the parallel line of the deposition of PW 1, whereas PW 9 - Bhaveshkumar Dave has not supported the case of the prosecution. PW 10 - Vikramsinh Arjunsinh has deposed that on 31.12.2002 he was serving as PSI, at that time, the complainant came to the police station and lodged the complaint. The witness stated that he recorded the statements of the witnesses. However, in the cross examination, the witness admitted that he recorded the complaint at 6.00 pm. The witness stated that he also received the complaint from the present respondent stating that in the meeting Vanrajbhai Barot and others have assaulted the present respondent. In his deposition, contradictions made by the complainant and other witnesses have been brought on record. PW 11 - Vikramsinh Jadeja has deposed that he was serving as Dy. S.P. The witness has stated that he has verified the investigation made by the PSI as well as the statements recorded by him. In his deposition, contradictions made by the complainant and other witnesses have been brought on record. PW 11 - Vikramsinh Jadeja has deposed that he was serving as Dy. S.P. The witness has stated that he has verified the investigation made by the PSI as well as the statements recorded by him. 8.2 On overall analysis of the evidence on record, it appears that complainant - Niruben lodged the complaint after the complaint lodged by the respondent against her supporters. Indisputably, the medical certificate at Exh. 44 issued by the Medical Officer, Community Health Center, Sojitra clearly indicates the fact that the present respondent received injuries over his person on 31.12.2002 during the meeting. Indisputably, except the allegation as regards to altercation and speaking derogatory words concerning the caste of the complainant, no injury over the person of the complainant is established on record by producing any medical certificate. In view of the aforesaid nature of evidence, learned trial Court has rightly appreciated the evidence on record and recorded the finding that the present complaint is the result of counter-blast in order to settle the political rivalry against the respondent. 8.3 In the backdrop of the aforesaid situation, the prosecution has also failed to prove the offence punishable under section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. Under the circumstances, learned trial Court has rightly acquitted the respondents accused considering the nature of evidence on record. 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 reasoning’s, 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 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. 11. 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. 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.