STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. BHARATBHAI HEMABHAI PATEL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS application has been preferred by the applicant State of Gujarat, seeking leave to appeal against the judgment and order dated 27.08.2012, passed by the learned Special Judge, Patan in Special Atrocity Case No.17/2012, whereby the accused persons have been acquitted of the offences under Sections447, 504, 506(2) read with Section114 of the Indian Penal Code and Section3(1)(iv)(v)(ix) of the Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 ("the Atrocities Act", for short).

(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the case of the prosecution is that the complainant Mukeshkumar Kanaiyalal Bhil lodged a complaint, which was registered as C.R.No.I 174/2011 at Patan City, 'B' Division Police Station, to the effect that on 09.11.2011, at about 10:00 a.m., the complainant was informed by Rameshbhai Maganbhai Patani, who cultivates the field of the complainant, that four persons, namely the respondents, had entered the field and were constructing a shed thereupon. Upon receiving this information, the complainant, along with PW3 Rakeshkumar Ranchhoddas Patel, went to the field of the complainant and saw that the respondents were constructing a shed on the field. The complainant asked the respondents why they have entered his field. The respondents replied that the field belongs to their father and they are in possession of the same. As per the case of the prosecution, the respondents threatened the complainant and abused him by saying "sala bhilda tare ahiya pag mukvo nahi" (.... don't step here). It is further the case of the prosecution that the respondents threatened to kill the complainant if he stepped into the field. The Police started investigation and recorded statements of the witnesses. The chargesheet was submitted and the charges were read over and explained to the respondents, who denied the same and claimed to be tried. The evidence of the prosecution witnesses was led. In their further statements under Section313 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, the respondents stated that they have been implicated in a false case.

(3.) I have heard Mr.Himanshu K. Patel, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the applicant and minutely perused the the record and the evidence submitted by him.