RAMESHBHAI KALUJI ROT Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE applicant ­ original complainant has filed this Revision Application under Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr.P.C., being aggrieved by the Judgment and order dated 30.6.2003 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Himatnagar, in Atrocity Case No. 19 of 2002, whereby the learned Judge has acquitted the respondents No.2 to 5 ­ original accused Nos.1 to 4 from the charges levelled against them.

(2.) THE case of the prosecution is that on 24.4.2002, at about 8.30 A.M., the complainant along with other three labourers were working in the farm of one Arunbhai Somabhai Sutaria and at that time accused Nos.1 & 2 came there and started abusing the complainant by using derogatory and vulgar language and insulted the complainant. The complainant thereupon contacted the land owner, who has advised him to keep on working and assured the complainant that when he (land owner) will come to the village, he will solve the problem and, therefore, the complainant continued to work in the farm. It is alleged that once again on 28.4.2002, when the complainant was working in the farm along with other persons, the respondents ­ original accused Nos.1 to 4 came there and started giving abuses to the complainant and his land owner and insulted the complainant by using filthy language about his caste. Thereafter, the complaint have been filed by the complainant against the present respondents No.2 to 5 before Himatngar Town Police Station on 30.4.2002 and the said complaint was forwarded to the Gahnboi Police station, vide CR No. 37 of 2002. Thereafter, the said case was registered as Atrocity Case No.19 of 2002 before the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Himatnagar. The learned Judge, after recording the evidence of witnesses and after hearing the parties, by Judgment and order dated 30.6.2003 acquitted all the accused. Being aggrieved by the said Judgment and order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, the present applicant has filed this Revision Application.

(3.) LEARNED Advocate Mr. Bhairavia has contended that the learned Judge has failed to appreciate the evidence produced on the record. The complainant has categorically stated in his examination in chief as also in the cross examination that all the accused came to the farm and gave abuses to the petitioner and used filthy language and insulted by saying humiliating words and threatened the petitioner, in presence of the witnesses. He has contended that the evidence is corroborated with the FIR Exh.18. He has contended the trial Court should have appreciated the fact that all the accused have identified by the complainant as well as other witnesses. He has contended that the trial Court has failed to appreciate the object and aim of the Atrocities Act by not considering the corroborated evidence on the record which constitute the offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act. He has, therefore, contended that looking to the facts and evidence produced on the record, the learned Judge has erred in acquitting the respondents ­ accused from the charges levelled against them. The learned Advocate has fairly admitted that State Government has not filed Appeal against the impugned Judgment and order of the trial Court.