STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. PATEL PARSHOTTAM AMBALAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Appeal is filed by the appellant - State of Gujarat under Sec. 378(1)(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 against the judgment and order dtd. 1/7/2006 passed by the learned Special Judge and Additional Sessions Judge, Gandhinagar in Sessions Case No.20 of 2006 acquitting the respondent nos. 1 and 2 - original accused from the offence punishable under Sec. 323, 504 and 114 of Indian Penal Code and under sec. 135 of Bombay Police Act and under sec. 3(1)(10) of the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities Act), 1989.

(2.) The case of the prosecution is that the complainant Amratbhai Aashrambhai Shrimali, residing at Gandhinagar Sector-17, Block no.88/2, about 8 Months ago, complainant bought the land at Sector-4/A bearing Plot no.1281/2, from the accused Parshotam Ambalal. The complainant knew from the some persons that the accused sold the same land to the other persons also. Therefore, the complainant demanded his money back from the accused. The accused gave him a Cheque. A case was pending against the accused at Gandhinagar Court in this regard. Date of hearing of the case was 7/3/2006, and therefore, the complainant and his neighbour Jignesh were standing near the Parking of Court at about 10.45. At about 11.30, the accused persons and two unknown persons came there and asked for settlement but the complainant denied for the same. Because of that, the accused persons got provoked and gave foul abuses and accused Bhavesh Parshotam gave punch blow and slapped on the left side of Chick of the complainant and also tried to hit him with belt but the complainant caught it. At that time other three persons beaten him from the back side. Therefore, he shouted for help. Because of that, some people interfered and saved him. Pursuant thereto, the FIR was lodged at Sector-7 Police Station for the offence punishable under Sec. 323, 504, 114 of Indian Penal Code and under sec. 135 of Bombay Police Act and under sec. 3 (1) (10) of Atrocity Act. The Police registered the offence and initiated the investigation and recorded statements of all the witnesses and prepared necessary Panchnama and arrested the accused persons.

(3.) Learned APP Mr.R.C. Kodekar for the appellant State has vehemently argued that the Sessions Court has committed a grave error in not believing the deposition of the witnesses examined by the prosecution and evidence adduced by the prosecution. He has further submitted that the Sessions Court has erred in acquitting the respondents accused from the charges levelled against them. He has further argued that the prosecution has proved that the respondents have committed offence under sec. 323, 504, 114 of Indian Penal Code and under sec. 135 of Bombay Police Act and under sec. 3 (1) (10) of Atrocity Act. He has further argued that Sessions Court has acquitted the respondents accused merely on some minor contradictions and omissions in the evidence of the witnesses. He has further argued that the trial court has erred in not believing the evidence of the investigating officer who had no reason to implicate the accused falsely in the case. He has further argued that the offence punishable under Sec. 323, 504, 114 of Indian Penal Code and under sec. 135 of Bombay Police Act and under sec. 3 (1) (10) of Atrocity Act, is made out, however, the same is not believed by the Sessions Court. He has further argued that though the prosecution witness has supported the case of the prosecution, the trial court erroneously not believed their evidence and acquitted the accused. He has further argued that the trial court has erroneously held that the prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt.