BHIKHABHAI BHAGABHAI MERJA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) All these three appeals are filed against impugned judgment and order 2.2.2015 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Morbi in Atrocity Case No.8 of 2009, whereby the learned trial Judge has acquitted all the accused of the charges levelled against them, except accused no.1 Bhikhabhai Bhagabhai, who is convicted for offence under Section 324 of IPC and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for three months and ordered to pay fine of Rs.500/- and in default of payment of fine, he was required to further undergo simple imprisonment of 15 days. Criminal Appeal No.377 of 2015 is preferred by Bhikhabhai Bhagabhai challenging his conviction for offence under Section 324 of IPC. Criminal Appeal No.516 of 2015 is filed by the State for enhancement of punishment imposed upon the accused-Bhikhabhai Bhagabhai. While Criminal Appeal No.517 of 2015 is filed by the State against acquittal of the accused persons.

(2.) The case of the prosecution is that on 13.6.2009, original complainant, viz. Champaben wife of Kanjibhai Punjabhai Bokhani (Vankar) lodged a complaint before Morbi Taluka Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 324, 504, 506 (2) read with Section 114 of IPC and under Section 135 of Gujarat Police Act and under Section 3 (1) (10) of the Atrocity Act, alleging inter alia that on 13.6.2009 at 8 O' clock all the accused in collusion with each other came to the complainant and asked her that why is she making false complaints against them and started abusing her. It is alleged that accused no.1-Bhikhabhai Bhagabhai assaulted her with axe and caused injury on her palm and accused no.2-Ramesh Jethabhai assaulted with stick and caused injury on elbow of right hand of husband of the complainant and also beat him with kick and fist blows. It is also alleged that all the accused used abusive language and language against the caste of the complainant and administered threat to kill and accordingly committed the offence. On these allegations, the complaint was filed with the police. The police after investigation charge sheeted the accused for the aforesaid offences. Charge sheet was filed before learned Magistrate, however, as the offence under Section 3 (1) (10) was triable by the Sessions Court, the same was committed to the Sessions Court. Thereafter, charge came to be framed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Morbi, and the plea of the accused persons came to be recorded. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed to be tried.

(3.) So far as Criminal Appeal No.517 of 2015 is concerned, it is submitted by Ms.Monali Bhatt, learned APP appearing for the State that the order of acquittal is contrary to law and evidence on record. She submitted that the learned trial Judge has committed an error in acquitting the accused persons of the charges levelled against them. She submitted that learned trial Judge failed to appreciate the evidence of PW1, Kantilal Gandubhai Kamani at Exh.13, PW-2, Complainant, Champaben Kanjibhai at Exh.17, PW-3 Kanjibhai Punjabhai at Exh.20, PW-4 Panch, Amubhai Jivabhai at Exh.21, PW-5 Panch, Jesingbhai Devshibhai at Exh.23 and PW-6, Ranjitsinh Desabhai at Exh.25. She submitted that the complainant has stated in her evidence that the accused used filthy abuses by using words like "Sala Dheda" and administered threat to kill them. She also submitted that the complainant has stated that the accused were armed with weapons and her statement is supported by the evidence of Kanjibhai Punjabhai. With regard to injuries, evidence of the complainant is supported by the evidence of Medical Officer. She also submitted that it is not correct to state that the complainant is in habit of filing such complaints. She submitted that it cannot be said that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. She also submitted that the learned Judge ought to have seen that the accused knowing fully that the complainant belongs to Schedule Caste community insulted the complainant in public by uttering offensive words relating to their caste and thereby the prestige of the complainant in the society was lowered. Therefore, she submitted that in view of above, this appeal may be allowed and the judgment of the trial Court acquitting the accused persons of the charges levelled against them may be reversed and they may be convicted for the offences as alleged.