Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 228 (GUJ)

State of Gujarat v. Bharwad Danubhai Kachrabhai

2019-03-14

R.P.DHOLARIA

body2019
JUDGMENT : R.P. Dholaria, J. 1. Though Rule has been served, neither the opponents have remained present nor they have put appearance through any advocate. 2. The appellant State has preferred this appeal under Section 378 of the Criminal Procedure Code against the judgment and order dated 21.09.2007 rendered by the learned Special Judge, Limbdi in Special Case No. 42 of 2005. 3. The short facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the complainant and other victims were residing in the agricultural field of Bhagubhai Parmar-Sarpanch of village: Panshina and they were engaged themselves in piecemeal labour work. On 21.01.2005 at about 6.00 p.m. while complainant along with his brothers were doing labour work, the accused Dana Kachra, Kanabhai Danabhai, Samant Khoda and Bharwad Ranchhodbhai came there and demanded woodlogs from the complainant. As the complainant denied to give wood-logs, the accused assaulted the complainant and prosecution witnesses with stick as well as gave filthy abuses to the complainant and prosecution witnesses relating to their caste and community, and thereby, he alleged to have committed the offence punishable under Sections 323, 324, 504, 506(2) read with Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3(1)(10) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and Section 135 of the B.P. Act. Hence, the complaint came to be lodged against the respondents accused. 3.1. In pursuance of the complaint, the Investigating Officer carried out the investigation and filed the charge sheet against the respondents accused. The charge was framed against the accused. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 3.2. In order to bring home the guilt, the prosecution has examined several witnesses and also produced documentary as well as oral evidence. 3.3. At the conclusion of the trial and after appreciating the oral as well as documentary evidence, 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 wrongly recorded the order of acquittal. 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. 6. Ms. Hansa Punani, 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 paperbook and evidence on record and argued that the order of acquittal is contrary to law. She further submitted that learned trial Court has not rightly appreciated the evidence on record. She further submitted that the complainant and three eye-witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution except the eye-witness Navalbhai. She further submitted that the evidence uttering intimidating word 'Padhiyar' concerning caste and community of the complainant as well as beating with sticks is clearly getting established from their evidence but learned trial Court has given unnecessary weightage to minor contradictions and wrongfully given the benefit of doubt. In her 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. 7. This Court has heard Ms. Hansa Punani, learned APP for the appellant State. Though served, none is present for the accused. 8. This Court has minutely gone through the impugned judgment and order rendered by learned trial Court as well as the evidence on record in the nature of paper book. As per the prosecution version, the complainant and other victims were residing in the agricultural field of Sarpanch of Panshina village and they were engaged in piece-meal labour work. On 21.01.2005 at about 18 hours, when they were working, at that time, the accused arrived holding sticks and asked for wood-logs. Thereafter, they assaulted the complainant and other victims with their respective sticks and also intimidated uttering words concerning his caste and community as 'Padhiyar' and intimidated there may not be allowed to stay here. On 21.01.2005 at about 18 hours, when they were working, at that time, the accused arrived holding sticks and asked for wood-logs. Thereafter, they assaulted the complainant and other victims with their respective sticks and also intimidated uttering words concerning his caste and community as 'Padhiyar' and intimidated there may not be allowed to stay here. Thereby they committed the offence as alleged such. 9. This Court has gone through the deposition of the complainant and his brother as well as materials available on record. Upon appreciating evidence as such, it is noticed that the learned trial Court has rightly recorded the findings that there is no uniformity in the evidence of complainant and his brother and say of all of them is not at all getting any support from deposition of the eye-witness Navalbhai and the injury which was found over the person of the complainant and victim, was simple in nature. Though, the doctor stated that the complainant and victim gave history involving Danabhai and Kanabahi but both of them deposed before the learned trial Court that they had not given any history before the doctor. Even, if the deposition of doctor may be believed to be true, then the witnesses gave name of four accused and that fact is totally contrary to the alleged history given before doctor. Therefore, as regards assault by the present accused to the respective person of complainant and victim is not at all getting proved, therefore, the learned trial Court has not put any reliance upon their evidence, which calls for no interference. 10. So far as the offence punishable under Section 3(1)(10) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act is concerned, indisputably, incident in question occurred on the private agricultural field of Sarpanch-Bhagwanbhai, which was not in public view and that only utterance as alleged by the complainant in his complaint was that the accused addressed him by his caste 'Padhiyar' and that itself would not constitute derogatory or insulting word of his caste and community of the complainant. Therefore, the learned trial Court has also rightly recorded the findings for the offence punishable under Section 3(1)(10) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities), Act. 11. Therefore, the learned trial Court has also rightly recorded the findings for the offence punishable under Section 3(1)(10) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities), Act. 11. 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 levelled 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. 12. It is also a settled legal position that in acquittal appeal, 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 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.