STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. ASHOK MANSURBHAI DANGAR

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. 19/7/2007 passed by the learned 4 th Joint Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Rajkot in Criminal Case No.3005 of 1997 acquitting the respondent nos. 1 to 9 - original accused from the offence punishable under Sec. 143 , 147 and 427 of Indian Penal Code and under sec. 3 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, Act 1984.

(2.) The case of the prosecution case is that the complainant Udaysinh Babubhai, Security Officer in Rajkot Municipality Office, registered compliant against present accused persons with Bhakti Nagar Police Station, Rajkot for the offences punishable under Ss. 143 , 147 and 427 of Indian Penal Code and Sec. 3 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984. That on 3/5/1997, accused persons gave an application to Deputy Municipal Commissioner about water crisis in backward areas, and thereafter, the accused persons, by forming unlawful assembly, entered into the cabin of Mayor and Chairman of the Standing Committee and caused damage to chair, Board and windows and also caused damaged of Rs.20,000.00 to Government Property. On the basis of the said complaint, investigation was initiated and after thorough investigation, as there was sufficient evidence against the present respondents-accused persons, Charge-sheet was filed against them before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rajkot and the case was transferred for trial to the learned 4th Joint Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Rajkot, and the case was numbered as Criminal Case No.3005 of 1997. Thereafter, Charge was framed against them for the offence punishable under Ss. 143 , 147 and 427 of Indian Penal Code & Sec. 3 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984. The accused persons pleaded not guilty to the charges and claimed to be tried. The prosecution, therefore, laid evidence. The Prosecution adduced oral as well as documentary evidences on the record of the case. At the conclusion of the trial, learned 4 th Joint Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Rajkot, was pleased to acquit all the accused persons from the offences punishable under sec. 143 , 147 and 427 of the Indian Penal Code and under sec. 3 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984.

(3.) Learned APP Mr.R.C. Kodekar for the appellant State has vehemently argued that the Magistrate 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 Magistrate 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. 143 , 147 and 427 of the Indian Penal Code and under sec. 3 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984. 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. 143 , 147 and 427 of the Indian Penal Code and under sec. 3 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984, is made out, however, the same is not believed by the learned Magistrate. 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 by giving benefit of doubt. He has further argued that the trial court has erroneously held that the prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. He has further argued that the learned trial court erred in not believing the evidence of the complainant Udaysinh Babubhai Ex.17 who has supported the case of the prosecution. He has further argued that the learned trial court has given undue importance to the evidence of panchas who were declared hostile. Making above submissions, he has requested to allow the present appeal.