TRILOKBHAI MOTILAL RAJPUT (BUNDEL) Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 24.03.2014, passed by the Special Judge (Atrocity), Court No. 7, Ahmedabad, in Special (Atrocity) Criminal Case No. 23 of 2012.

(2.) THE appellant, in this Criminal Appeal, is original accused in said Special (Atrocity) Criminal Case No. 23 of 2012. The appellant was charged for the offence punishable under Sections 326, 337, 294(b) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocity) Act, 1989. By the impugned judgment and order, the accused -appellant is acquitted from the charge of the offence punishable under Sections 326, 337, 294(b) of the Indian Penal Code by granting benefit of doubt. However, the appellant in present appeal is convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 324 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocity) Act, 1989. After recording the conviction against present appellant -accused in the said offences, the learned Trial Court sentenced the appellant to undergo simple imprisonment for 1(one) year for the offence punishable under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code and to pay fine in the sum of Rs. 4,000/ - and if the fine is not paid then to undergo simple imprisonment for 1(one) month and for the offence punishable under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocity) Act, 1989, the appellant is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for 1(one) year and to pay fine in the sum of Rs. 4000/ - and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for 1(One) month. The sentence imposed on the appellant have to be undergone concurrently. Briefly stated, the case of the prosecution was that on 02.10.2005, at about 06.45 P.M., when the appellant was present in his cabin -shop, where he is running a small watch repairing shop, quarrel took place between the accused and the complainant, who had given his watch for repair and during the said quarrel, the appellant abused the complainant and insulted him by naming his caste and using derogatory words/language. According to the case of the prosecution, at the time of quarrel, the appellant was repairing some watch and for that purpose, he had poured acid in a bowl to clean the parts of the watch and during the quarrel the appellant threw the said liquid acid at the complainant on account of which the complainant received burns injuries since some of liquid acid fell on chest and hand. The complainant was treated at a hospital. The complainant lodged a complaint on the same date when the incident occurred i.e. on 02.10.2015. In his complaint he mentioned the names of witnesses who, according to his allegation were present along with him at the shop of the appellant when the incident occurred.

(3.) MR . Rupera, learned advocate for the appellant submitted that the learned Trial Court has committed error in convicting the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocity) Act, 1989, whereas the appellant is not guilty and he was implicated in false case. Learned advocate for the appellant submitted that the appellant had not opposed the complaint and he had not insulted the complainant in any manner, much less using derogatory words or in the name of complainant's caste or other words. Learned advocate for the appellant submitted that even if it is assumed that the alleged incident occurred then also it cannot be said that the incident occurred in public view and that therefore, it would not fall within purview of Section 3(1)(x) of the Atrocities Act and the learned Trial Court has committed error in not appreciating the said aspect and in convicting the appellant. Learned advocate for the appellant also submitted that the witness, who is examined as eye witness has not supported the case of the prosecution, however, the learned Trial Court has erroneously ignored the said aspect. Learned advocate for the appellant also submitted that all panch witnesses were declared hostile and consequently neither recovery nor the incident are proved. Learned advocate for the appellant also submitted that the complainant's brother was examined, but the said evidence is purely hear -say evidence since the complainant's brother was not present at the time of incident. According to the learned advocate for the appellant the evidence of adjoining cabin holder did not support the case of the prosecution. Learned advocate for the appellant also relied on the decision in case of Asma Tunnicha Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, reported in : (2011) 11 SCC 259. He also relied on the decision of Delhi High Court dated 03.07.2006 in case of Sachin Kumar Vs. State of Delhi. He also relied on the decision by Bombay High Court in case of Dinakar Rao as Javale Vs. State of Maharashtra. He also relied on the decision by Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Bharat Petroleum Corporation Vs. Union of India.