LAWS(GJH)-2025-2-1

STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. PATEL NARENDRABHAI MANIBHAI

Decided On February 04, 2025
STATE OF GUJARAT Appellant
V/S
Patel Narendrabhai Manibhai Respondents

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. 8/10/2009 in Special Atrocity Case No.18 of 2016 passed by the learned Special Judge (Atrocity), 3 rd Fast Track Court, Mehsana camp at Visnagar (hereinafter referred to as 'the learned Trial Court'), whereby, the learned Trial Court has acquitted the respondent - accused from the offences punishable under Ss. 504 and 507 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as 'the IPC')and under Sec. 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Atrocities Act'). The respondent is hereinafter referred to as 'the accused' as he 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 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 not considered the direct or indirect evidence produced in this case connecting the accused with the crime and has also not appreciated the oral as well as documentary evidence on record and has straightway arrived at the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubts. The learned Trial Court has erred in considering minor omissions and contradictions in the evidence of the prosecution and the learned Trial Court has given much weightage to these minor omissions and contradictions. That the reasons given by the learned Trial Court appreciating the evidence and while acquitting the accused, are not proper and are perverse and bad in law, and hence, the impugned judgment and order deserves to be quashed and set aside.