Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 1747 (GUJ)

State of Gujarat v. Patel Jayantibhai Mangaldas

2016-08-12

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 1.4.2006 rendered by learned Special Judge, Fast Track Court No. 2, Patan in Special Atrocity Case No. 17 of 2005. 2. The short facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the complainant filed the complaint on 17.1.2005 before the police station stating the fact that on 17.1.2005 at about 8.00 hours at night, while he was coming back from the milk society after giving milk in dairy, accused Jayantibhai Manilal Patel met him with dharia in the way near the house of Dhanabhai Narsinhbhai Harijan. It is alleged that accused Jayantibhai gave filthy abuses concerning to the caste of the complainant and inflicted reverse blow of dharia on left leg of the complainant. It is alleged that other accused were also armed with dhoka and stick and they also given filthy abuses and beaten the complainant and thereby caused injuries. 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 chargesheet 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 several witnesses and also produced documentary evidences. 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. 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. 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. 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. Chaudhary, 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. Chaudhary further submitted that there is no evidence on record to connect the accused with the crime in question, but on the contrary the story put up by prosecution in the complaint itself is not getting any sort of corroboration as per the medical evidence and the entire incident appears to have been concocted. 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. N.P. Chaudhary, 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. 7. This Court has heard Mr. L.R. Pujari, learned APP for the appellant State and Mr. N.P. Chaudhary, 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 version, complainant - Laxmanbhai Jivanbhai Parmar has stated that on 17.1.2005 while he was returning after delivering milk in the dairy, respondent Jayantilal was armed with dharia and gave blow over his leg and respondent Rameshbhai Tribhovanbhai inflicted stick over his back side and thereafter witness Mahendrabhai Jethabhai Parmar intervened. It is the case of the prosecution that the accused also inflicted kick and fist blows and uttered derogatory words concerning to the caste of the complainant and thereby committed the offence punishable under sections 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 ("the Act" for short). 8.1 Complainant PW 2 - Laxmanbhai Jivanbhai Parmar has deposed in line with the story put up by him in the complaint. However, in his cross examination, the witness has admitted that respondent Jayantibhai is serving as Principal in the school and respondent Manibhai as well as respondent Rameshbhai Tribhovanbhai were serving in the GEB. The witness also admitted that other witnesses are his relatives and after the incident, he was examined by the Medical Officer. 8.2 Other witness PW 3 - Senghabhai Jivanbhai Chamar, PW 4 - Mahendrabhai Jethabhai Parmar and PW 5 - Jitendrabhai Amrutbhai Parmar have also deposed in the similar line to that of the complainant. However, contradictions are brought on record. 8.3 PW 1 - Dr. Chunilal Jujaram Kumavat has deposed that on 17.1.2005 when he was serving as Medical Officer in the General Hospital, Patan, at that time, at about 9.15 hours Laxmanbhai Jivanbhai Parmar approached him for medical examination without police yadi wherein he explained injuries stating that opposite party assaulted by dharia and stick etc. The witness stated that there were two injuries, i.e. one was abrasion on lower limb and another injury was on chest on right side and he issued the certificate. In the cross examination, the witness has admitted that both the injuries were simple in nature and one can receive such injuries due to fall from the cycle. The witness stated that there were two injuries, i.e. one was abrasion on lower limb and another injury was on chest on right side and he issued the certificate. In the cross examination, the witness has admitted that both the injuries were simple in nature and one can receive such injuries due to fall from the cycle. 8.4 On overall analysis of the evidence on record, it appears that as per the say of the complainant, respondent No. 1 inflicted injury by dharia on his leg which is not getting corroboration from the medical evidence. Similarly, the complainant stated that other respondents inflicted stick blow over his back as well as kick and fist blows which are also not getting corroboration from the medical evidence. So far as the allegation as regards to the offence under section 3(1)(x) of the Act is concerned, in the facts of the present case, the provisions of section 3(1)(x) of the Act are not attracted. Under the circumstances, the say of the complainant is not getting corroboration from the medical evidence as well as the prosecution has failed to bring on record any injury over the person of two witnesses by producing any medical certificate or any other reliable evidence. The entire case of the prosecution appears to be concocted and 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 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 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 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.