GATUBHA MOHANSINH JADEJA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appellants/original accused in the Sessions Case no. 174/91 have filed this appeal against the judgment and order passed in the said case against the appellants by the Addl.Sessions Judge, Rajkot on 7.1.93 wherein the appellant no. 1 was convicted to simple imprisonment for one month and fine of Rs.100.00 in default simple imprisonment for 7 days for the offence under Sec. 323 of the Indian Penal Code and all the appellants were convicted for simple imprisonment for one month and fine of Rs.100.00 in default simple imprisonment for seven days for the offence under Sec. 504, 506(2), 114 of I.P.C. and further convicted the appellants for simple imprisonment for six months and fine of Rs.200/in default simple imprisonment for twelve days for the offence under Sec. 3(2)(10) of SC/ST Prevention of Atrocities Act. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. It appears that all the accused/appellants have paid the fine and therefore they were released on bail.

(2.) The short facts of the prosecution case are to the effect that on 9.7.90 at about 8.00 to 8.30 p.m. when the complainant Laljibhai Ambabhai was sitting in his house at village Vanpari, Taluka Padhadari at that time, the appellant no. 1 Gatubha Mohansinh came to his house and told him that as his house has fallen down, he should get it repaired by putting naliya. Thereupon, by using abusive language he further told to kill him. Due to such language used by the appellant no.1 the complainant was threatened and he hid in his house. At this time the appellant no. 2 to 4 came there and the appellant no. 3 Harisinh was having a stick in his hands. There was no light at that time and the appellant nos. 2 to 4 shouted to call Lala outside as they want to kill him. On account of the noise, Aluben Khimabhai and Khimabhai Sidibhai and other people came there. Aluben told the appellant no. 1 Gatubha Mohansinh not to speak abusive language. Hearing this, the appellant no. 1 gave two-three slaps on her face. At that time, Devshi the son of the complainant and Keshuben wife of the complainant and others came and due to absence of light, the complainant ran away and went to the house of one Bejuram Brahman at Padhadari from where both of them went to Padadri police station and gave complaint to P.S.I.Rathod at about 8.30 p.m. F.I.R. was lodged against the present appellants and further investigation was taken over by P.S.I.Rathod. P.S.I.Rathod went to the place of incident at Vanpari and recorded the statements of the witnesses. On 10.7.90, P.S.I.Rathod arrested the present appellants and panchanama of arrest was prepared. The appellant no. 3 Harisinh Jadeja produced the muddammal stick which was also seized under the panchanama. The panchanama of the scene of offence was also executed. Thereafter, the chargesheet was filed against the present appellants before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rajkot. As the cases under Schedule Castes, Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as the Atrocities Act) are exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the matter was committed to the Sessions Court, Rajkot.

(3.) The learned Addl.Sessions Judge, Rajkot framed the charge against the accused at exh. 1 under Secs. 504, 506(2), 114 of I.P.C. and under Sec. 3(2)(10) of Atrocities Act. The charge was read over to the appellants/accused who pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The prosecution therefore examined i) p.w.1 Complainant Laljibhai Ambabhai at exh. 10, ii) p.w. 2 Alubhai Khimabhai at exh. 12, iii) p.w. 3 Vibhaji Ranmalbhai at exh. 13, iv) p.w. 4 Ranvirbhai Valabhai at exh. 16, v) p.w.5 Dalpitsinh Himmatsinh Rathod at exh. 17. The prosecution also relied on documentary evidence such as FIR at exh. 11, panchanama at exh. 14 etc.