STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. DAYABHAI MANDABHAI CHUDASAMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present Appeal is directed against the impugned judgment and order in Sessions Case No. 36 of 2008 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge and Presiding Officer, 3rd FTC, Junagadh dtd. 31/7/2010 recording the acquittal of the Accused Persons for the charges under Sec. 323, 504, 506(2) and 114 of the Indian Penal Code and Sec. 3(1)(10) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as "the Atrocities Act") and Sec. 135 of the Bombay Police Act.

(2.) The facts of the case briefly are that on 29/6/2008, the complainant along with his wife and son had gone to his plot, where his house was constructed. At that time at about ten o' clock in the morning, the respondents - accused persons,keeping in mind the grudge about the fact that the complainant had signed in the documents for the refusal of setting up one mobile tower, came there armed with sticks and kharapiya and started abusing them. Since the complainant asked for pardon, the respondents / accused persons got enraged and started beating them with stick and kharapiya and caused them injuries. The complainant and his family members were threatened to kill them. Thereby the respondents - accused have committed alleged offences. Therefore, offence being C.R.No. II-3103/2008 came to be registered with Keshod Police Station for the alleged offences under Ss. 323, 504, 506(2) and 114 of the Indian Penal Code and Sec. 3(1) (10) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as "the Atrocities Act") and Sec. 135 of the Bombay Police Act.

(3.) Upon such FIR being filed, investigation started and the Investigating Officer recorded statements of as many as 8 witnesses and produced number of documentary evidence, and after completion of the investigation, Charge-sheet was filed against the accused for the offences in question. The case was committed to the Sessions Court and the learned trial Judge framed the Charge. Since the accused persons did not plead guilty, trial was proceeded against the accused. Vide impugned judgment and order dtd. 31/7/2010, the learned trial Judge acquitted the accused persons. Being aggrieved by the same, the State has preferred the present appeal