KESURBHAI JAGABHAI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision application is filed against the judgment and order dated 21.02.2005 passed in Special Atrocity Case No.31 of 1998 by the Additional Sessions Judge, 3rd Fast Track Court, Vyara, whereby the learned Sessions Judge acquitted the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 504, 506(2) read with Section 114 of Indian Penal Code and Section 3(i)(x)of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

(2.) THE facts leading to this revision application are such that the complainant Kesurbhai Jagabhai Chaudhary is residing at Vyara and doing agricultural work. THE brother of the complainant Mansingbhai was cultivating the land of joint ownership situated at village Madhi, Kantiyafalia. As per the complaint, they were cultivating sugarcane in the land of joint ownership and supplying the same to Madhi Sugar Factory, which was being given to the sugar factory in the name of Mansingbhai. In the year 1993-94, the production of sugarcane was approximately 39 tons, the payment of which was Rs.37,626-69 paise. Before the payment could be made by the Madhi Sugar Factory, the brother of the complainant Mansingbhai expired on 11.1.1994 and as the legal heir of Mansingbhai, the complainant demanded the said money from the administrators of the Madhi Sugar Factory. Even on repeated oral as well as written requests, the accused did not give the said money to the complainant. When on 10.9.96, the complainant went for demanding the money at about 12.30 hours from the accused persons, they spoke filthy language and abused the complainant about his caste and therefore the complainant filed a private complaint on 4.4.1997 before the Sessions Judge, Surat. THE learned Sessions Judge ordered for investigation under Section 156(3) of Criminal Procedure Code. THE police, on completion of the investigation, came to the conclusion that the complainant filed a false complaint to defame the administrators of the sugar factory and prayed to file `C' Summary. THE Court issued notice to the complainant for the same to which the complainant filed objections to file `C' Summary. After hearing the learned APP and the learned advocate for the complainant, the learned Sessions Court, Surat accepted the `C' Summary for the accused no.5 and took cognizance of the offence under Section 3(i)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and issued summons to the accused.

(3.) AFTER considering the evidence on record, the learned Sessions Court held that there are major contradictions in the deposition of the complainant as well as the witness Kanjibhai Sogabhai Chaudhary. It is also held that the incident took place on 10.9.1996 and the complaint was lodged on 4.4.1997 i.e. after a period of seven months and no plausible explanation is given by the complainant for filing the complaint late. From the evidence of Investigating Officer also, it appears that no complaint is lodged before the Bardoli Police Station.