STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. THANABHAI GANESHBHAI RAJPUT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Appeal is filed by the appellant under Sec. 378(1)(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 against the judgment and order dtd. 11/9/2007 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge and 3 rd Fast Track Court, Diodar in Special Case No.45 of 2007, acquitting the private respondents Nos. 1 to 3 - original accused from the offence punishable under Sec. 504 , 506(2) and 114 of Indian Penal Code and under Sec. 3(1)(10) of the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities Act), 1989.

(2.) The brief facts of the prosecution case is that on 3/1/2007, the complainant Ishwarbhai Nagabhai Nesda registered a complaint against the accused persons at Suigam Police Station, with C.R. No.3001/2007, for the offences punishable under Ss. 504 , 506(2) , 114 of the Indian Penal Code and Ss. 3(1) (10) of the Atrocity Act, 1989, stating therein that the complainant is residing at Vav, and having three brothers. On 2/1/2007 at afternoon, the complainant gone to his farm and at that time the accused persons came to his house and all the accused abused the complainant by uttering obscene words in public relating to the mother and Sister of the complainant and also to his wife Sonaben and minor son Dhanji, and saying "Taro Dhani Vadhare Dahyo Thay Chhe, Te Aeklo Mali Jay to Janthi Mari Nakhavo Chhe, and Amari Aagal Tamari Shu Hesiyat Chhe Sala Kandao Tamoto Varsho Thi Amara Gulam Chho Jethi Ame Kahie Tem Karvu Padshe". On hearing the shout of the complainant's wife and accused persons Complainant's mother Gomtiben and Uncle's daughter came there and pacified them. Thereafter, the complainant filed a complaint with C.R.No.3001/2007, and the offence was registered at Suigav Police Station against the accused persons for offences punishable under Ss. 504 , 506(2) , 114 of the Indian Penal Code and Ss. 3(1) (10) of the Atrocity Act, 1989.

(3.) Heard the learned advocates for the respective parties and perused the impugned judgement and order of acquittal. Re-appreciated the entire evidence on record. Since the respondent No.3 died during the pendency of the proceedings, present appeal stands abated qua respondent No.3.