STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. SANJAYBHAI VISANJI CHHEDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS application has been preferred by the applicant- State of Gujarat, seeking leave to appeal against the judgment and order dated 11.07.2012, passed by the learned Second Additional District Judge, Vadodara, in Atrocity Case No.46 of 2010, whereby the respondent- original accused has been acquitted of the charge under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Atrocities Act').

(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the case of the prosecution is that on 10.08.2010, between 12:00 noon to 12:15, the complainant was taken by PW-2, Mukeshbhai Pujalal Shah, who is a contractor, to clean the gutter situated in the house of the respondent. The respondent is a tenant in the said house which belongs to an advocate by the name of Niraj Jain. On being asked by Niraj Jain, PW-2, had enlisted the services of the complainant to clean the gutter and had taken him to the house named 'Virkrupa', situated near Hathi Pole Naka, Manek Rao Akhada, Vadodara. It is the case of the prosecution that when the complainant reached the spot, the respondent told him 'what work do you have and why have you come to my house', upon which, the complainant had replied that he had come to clean the gutter. In order to open the lid of the gutter, the complainant removed a plastic bucket that was lying there. The respondent told the complainant not to touch anything, as he belongs to the Jain community and maintains a distance from people belonging to 'Dheda Bhangi' caste. The respondent then became agitated and abused the complainant and told him to get out and not touch anything without permission. The complainant told the respondent that he does the work of cleaning of gutters but that does not mean that he could call him 'Dheda Bhangiya', upon which the respondent said that he would have to call him what he is. The respondent then went into the house and the complainant left the place. According to the complaint, PW-2 Mukeshbhai and PW-3 Sureshbhai were present at the spot when the incident took place.

(3.) THE prosecution produced as many as six witnesses in support of its case and relied upon five documents, in evidence. After appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence on record, the Trial Court came to the conclusion that the charge against the respondent was not proved by the prosecution and recorded a finding of acquittal in his favour, giving rise to the filing of the present application.