AHIR NARAN GOVIND SOLANKI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge was given by the appellants by filing the appeal under Sec. 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dtd. 13/3/2007 passed by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Veraval in Atrocity Sessions Case no.3 of 2004, whereby both the accused were convicted for the offence punishable under Sec. 332 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and were ordered to undergo sentence of three years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.5,000.00 with default stipulation that in failure to pay the fine amount, further to undergo six months rigorous imprisonment. Both the accused were acquitted of the charges under Ss. 506(2) and 114 IPC and further were acquitted for the charge under Sec. 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities Act), 1989 (hereinafter referred to as "the Atrocities Act").

(2.) During pendency of the present appeal, the appellant no.2 being accused no.2 of the Sessions Case died and hence, the present appeal stood abated against him.

(3.) Learned advocate Mr. Ashish M. Dagli, concentrating his argument in connection with the appellant no.1, submitted that the allegation under the Atrocities Act as well as Ss. 504 and 506(2) IPC were not found to be proved by the learned Trial Court Judge and taking into consideration the crux of the complaint, the offence under Sec. 332 IPC would also not become believable. Advocate Mr. Dagli submitted that the intent of the accused becomes a crucial factor, which requires to be examined in order to consider any act of the accused to deter the public servant in discharge of his public duty. Advocate Mr. Dagli submitted that the accused were demanding for the solvency certificate papers and the insistence was of the accused to personally hand over the solvency certificate since they were to be produced in the Court of law for bail purpose. Advocate Mr. Dagli submitted that the case has been put up by the accused for issuance of the solvency certificate. The complainant had demanded money, which was not agreeable to the appellant-accused and therefore, in counter, the FIR has been filed. Advocate Mr. Dagli further submitted that the case of the complainant could not be proved as alleged of causing injury since no medical evidence has been produced during the trial, nor the complainant himself had made any effort to visit the Doctor for the treatment of the injuries. It is also the submission of learned advocate Mr. Dagli that the persons who were alleged to be present at the office who was the Sarpanch - Vimal Devsibhai Solanki and Sarman Kachara Vadher at the Panchayat office have not supported the complainant's case. It is their specific evidence that no such incident had occurred.