STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. BABUSINH SOMSINH RATHOD

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. 5/9/2009 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Sabarkantha at Himmatnagar in Special (Atrocity) Case No.3 of 2009 acquitting the respondent nos. 1 and 2 - original accused from the offence punishable under Sec. 323, 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 case of the prosecution is that the complainant is residing at village Moyad, taluka Prantij alongwith his family and serving with the Department of Agriculture, Sachivalaya, Gandhinagar. It is further the case of prosecution that an 22/11/2003 at about 6.30 hours in evening, while daughter of complainant namely Urvashi @ Pinki was bringing water from water-stand, at that time respondent accused - Babusinh Somsinh Rathod, Peon of Moyad Gram Panchayat came near water-stand and informed the daughter of complainant not to waste water and to stop the water-tapit and thereby given filthy abuses. Thereafter, accused Babusinh had also given filthy abuses to complainant Jayantibhai and administered threat. Thereafter, again on 23/11/2806 while complainant was returning from village Galal and coming towards village Moyad on motorcycle, accused Mukhsinh and Babusinh called the complainant and the accused Mukhsinh pulled him away from motor cycle and gave fist blows on his face as well as given filthy abuses by saying "Sala Bhangiya, why are you raising dispute with Babusinh" and also administered threat to cause death. It is further the case of prosecution that at the time of incident, complainant shouted for help, the wife of complainant Savitaben came to the place of incident, and accused person ran away.

(3.) Learned APP Mr.R.C. Kodekar for the appellant State has vehemently argued that the Sessions Judge 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 Judge 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, 506(2) and 114 of Indian Penal Code and under sec. 3(1)(10) of the Atrocities Act. He has further argued that Sessions Judge has acquitted the respondents accused merely on some minor contradictions and omissions in the evidence of the witnesses. He has further argued that the Sessions Judge 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, 506(2) and 114 of Indian Penal Code and under sec. 3(1)(10) of the Atrocities Act, is made out, however, the same is not believed by the Sessions Judge. He has further argued that though the prosecution witness has supported the case of the prosecution, the Sessions Judge erroneously not believed their evidence and acquitted the accused. He has further argued that the Sessions has erroneously held that the prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. Making above submissions, he has requested to allow the present appeal.