STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. HEMLATABEN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present Appeal is preferred by the Appellant - State of Gujarat under Sec. 378(1)(3) of the Criminal procedure Code, 1973, against the impugned judgment and order passed in Special (Atrocity) Case No. 9 of 2010 by the learned Special Judge - 2 nd Additional Sessions Judge, Navsari dtd. 7/12/2012, recording the acquittal of the Respondents / Original Accused Persons for the charges under Ss. 143 , 323 , 354 , 504 , 506(2) and 114 of the Indian Penal Code Sec 3(1)(10) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act , 1989 (hereinafter referred to as "the Atrocities Act").

(2.) The brief facts of the prosecution case is that PW-1 Lilaben Harishben Jadav has registered a complaint with Navsari Town Police Station, Navsari, being II-C.R. No. 23 of 2010 against the Respondents / Original Accused stating therein that the Complainant along with her family is residing at 102, Laxmi Apartment, Shanta Devi Road, Navsari. Her husband was serving in the Aeru Canal Department. She was having two daughters. The mother of the Complainant was residing at Saraswati Apartment, Shanta Devi Road, and in the same building, the Respondents / Original Accused were residing earlier, hence, the Respondents / Original Accused persons and the Complainant very well known to one another. That on 2/2/2010, her two daughters went for a walk at Lunci Kui, at about 6:30 P.M., her daughter viz. Tejal called the Complainant and informed that the Appellant / Original Accused No.1 - Hemlataben and Respondent / Original Accused No.5 - Sonamben quarreled with them and beaten Tejal. Therefore, the Complainant and her husband immediately went at the scene of offence and seen that the Respondents / Original Accused Nos. 1 and 5 were beating her daughter, and during that period, other Respondents / Original Accused Nos. 2,3 and 4 came there and gave feast and kick blows along with filthy abuses relating to her caste. Because of that, daughter of the Complainant viz. Tejal received injury and hence, she was taken to hospital. Hence, the Complaint was lodged against the accused persons.

(3.) Upon such FIR being filed, investigation started and the Investigating Officer recorded statements of as many as 13 witnesses and produced number of documentary evidence, and after completion of the investigation, Charge-sheet was filed against the accused persons for the offences in question. The case was committed to the Sessions Court and the learned trial Judge framed the Charge. Since the accused did not plead guilty, trial was proceeded against the accused. Vide impugned judgment and order dtd. 7/7/2012, the learned trial Judge acquitted the accused persons. Being aggrieved by the same, the State has preferred the present appeal.