STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. RAJUJI JAGSIJI THAKORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant State has preferred this appeal under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and challenged the judgement and order of acquittal passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Palanpur, on 15.1.1993 in Special Case No. 75 of 1992 acquitting the respondent-accused for the offences punishable under Sections 324, 114 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 3(1)(x) of The Scheduled Castes and The Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 ("the Atrocities Act" for short).

(2.) According to the prosecution case, on 13.1.1992 at about 20 hours accused No. 1 Rajuji and accused No. 2 Visaji caught hold of injured Ishwar Mansang and accused No. 3 Chenaji Rajuji caused injury with dhariya on his head. It was also the prosecution case that accused intentionally insulted the injured intending that such provocation will cause him to break public peace. It was also the prosecution case that the accused intentionally insulted the injured being a member of a Scheduled Caste in public place within public view.

(3.) On the basis of F.I.R. lodged by injured Ishwar Mansang before Deodar Police Station on 14.1.1992, offence was registered and investigation was started. At the end of investigation chargesheet came to be filed for the offence punishable under Sections 324, 114 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 3(1)(x) of the Atrocities Act and the case was registered as Special Case No. 75 of 1992. The trial Court framed charge Exh. 4 against the accused for the aforesaid offence. Charge was read over and explained to the accused who pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed to be tried. Therefore, prosecution adduced evidence. On completion of recording of evidence, further statements under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure were recorded. The accused in their further statement stated that false case is filed against them. After hearing learned APP and learned advocate appearing for the accused, the trial Court by the impugned judgement acquitted the accused. Being aggrieved by the said decision, the State has preferred this appeal.