RESHABHAI BHIKHABHAI HARIJAN Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision has been filed by the original complainant under Section 397 read with Sec.401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and under Sec.482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking to quash and set aside judgment and order dated 18-8-2005 passed below Ex.140 in Special Case No.32 of 2001 by the learned Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court No.5, Palanpur, whereby the present respondent Nos.2 to 5-original accused were acquitted from the charges levelled against them.

(2.) THE facts in nutshell are that a complaint was filed by the applicant-original complainant before Panthawada Police Station for the offences punishable under Secs.324, 323, 427, 504, 114 of IP Code, Sec.135 of B.P.Act and Sec.3(1)(10) of Atrocity Act against the present respondent Nos.2 to 5-original accused alleging that on 4-10-2000 at 9 p.m., when one Harijan Nanjibhai Navabhai was taking his aunt Lavangaben to hospital for treatment in a hired jeep of Darji Devabhai, the respondent Nos.2 to 5 stopped the jeep and asked the applicant as to why said jeep was hired. THE applicant replied that as his aunt was ill and as there was no other vehicle, he hired the said jeep of Darji Devabhai. On hearing this, the accused started abusing the applicant and began beating them with the weapons held by him causing injuries to relatives of applicant. On the basis of the said complaint, police started investigation and at the end of investigation, police filed charge sheet against the accused in the Court of J.M.F.C., Dhanera. As the case involved provisions of Atrocity Act, the case was committed to the Sessions Court where it was numbered as Special Case NO.32 of 2001. At the end of trial, learned Judge vide impugned judgment and order acquitted the accused. Hence, the present revision by the applicant-original complainant.

(3.) IT is however submitted by learned advocate, Mr.J.M.Barot that the prosecution has failed to prove the charge against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. According to him, it was held by the Sessions Court that investigation is carried out by P.I. which is against the mandatory provisions of Atrocity Act and, therefore, the accused are entitled to benefit of doubt. IT is also observed that there are major contradictions in the evidence of witnesses as to the manner in which the incident took place, weapon used in the crime and role attributed to the accused persons and hence, it has been rightly observed that prosecution has failed to prove the case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt.