STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. MAHEBUBBHAI HANIFBHAI MULTANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been filed by the appellant - State under Sec. 378(1)(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') against the judgment and the order dtd. 5/3/2008 in Sessions (Special Atrocity) Case No.183 of 2007 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge and Presiding Officer, Main Fast Track Court, Gondal (hereinafter referred to as 'the learned Trial Court'), whereby, the learned Trial Court has acquitted the respondents - accused from the offences punishable under Ss. 323, 324, 341, 504 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as 'the IPC')and Sec. 3(1) (10) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Atrocity Act') and Sec. 37(1) and 135 of the Bombay Police Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the B.P.Act'). The respondents are hereinafter referred to as 'the accused' as they stood in the rank and file in the original case, for the sake of convenience, clarity and brevity.

(2.) The relevant facts leading to filing of the present appeal are as under:

(3.) Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Trial Court, the appellant - State has filed the present appeal mainly stating that the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Trial Court is contrary to law, evidence on record and principles of natural justice and the same is based on inferences not warranted by facts of the case and also on presumption not permitted by law. The learned Trial Court has erred in appreciating the direct and indirect evidence produced in this case connecting the accused with the crime. The learned Trial Court has erred in appreciating the oral as well as documentary evidence produced by the prosecution in its true spirit and straightway arrived at the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubts. The learned Trial Court has failed in holding that the prosecution has failed to prove particular words of abuses, which were used by the accused. The learned Trial Court has committed error in giving undue importance to minor omissions and contradictions in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. The impugned judgment and order of acquittal passed by the learned Trial Court is illegal, invalid, improper, perverse and bad in law and the same deserves to be quashed and set aside.