RAMANBHAI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BOTH these appeals are preferred against the judgment and order dated 30.12.2009 passed by learned Special Magistrate, Fast Track Court No. 3, at Nadiad in Special (S.T.S.T) Case No. 42 of 2009 whereby the learned trial court acquitted accused No. 1 and accused No. 2 from charge of offence punishable under Section 504 and 114 of Indian Penal Code and Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act").

(2.) BEREFT of other details and relevant facts in backdrop of which the appellant herein came to be charged for the offence mentioned above are, according to the case of the prosecution, that after the daughter of the complainant cleared the front/open area - steps outside their house, the accused No. 1 passed by and while passing through he spit at the cleaned area and therefore the complainant admonished him and asked that why he spit at the area which daughter had just cleaned. According to the prosecution accused No. 1 started abusing the complainant and also mentioned his caste and then called his son -in -law who, after knowing that quarrel took place between the complainant and his father -in -law i.e. accused No. 1 brought wooden pestle and hit the complainant near forehead. He also abused the complainant mentioning his caste. In this background the complainant lodged complaint against accused Nos. 1 and 2. After investigation, chargesheet was filed. Since charge of offence punishable under Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") was mentioned in the chargesheet against the 2 accused persons, the case was committed/transferred to the Special Court and was registered as Special (S.T.S.T) Case No. 42 of 2009. The Court recorded statement of the 2 accused persons who pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. After evidence was recorded the Court completed procedure of recording further statement under Section 313 and brought on impeding facts, evidence and circumstances to the notice of the accused persons. Thereafter, upon considering the submission by learned Counsel for the accused persons and learned PP, learned Court passed above mentioned judgment recording conviction against accused No. 2 for offence punishable under Section 323 however learned Court acquitted accused No. 1 from offence punishable under Section 323 and also acquitted accused No. 2 from the offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act.

(3.) WITH reference to the State's Appeal i.e. Criminal Appeal No. 664 of 2010 learned APP submitted that so far as charge of offence under Section 323 is concerned, the prosecution has established commission of offence and learned trial Court has rightly recorded conviction against present appellant under Section 323 of IPC. However, so far as the decision recording acquittal qua original accused No. 1 in respect of the charge of offence under Section 323, 504and 114 of Indian Penal Code is concerned, learned Court has committed error in acquitting accused No. 1 and likewise learned Court also committed error in acquitting accused No. 2 from the charge of commission of offence under Section 504 and therefore the said decision may be set aside and both the accused persons may be convicted for the said charge. So far as the charge of commission of offence under Section 3(1)(x) of Atrocity Act is concerned, learned APP submitted that the learned Court has committed error in acquitting accused No. 1 from the said offence and therefore the decision to that extent also may be set aside and accused No. 1 may be held guilty of the said offence and may be convicted and sentenced accordingly.