STATE OF GUJARA Vs. MULSINH PARBATSINH CHAUHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal of acquittal preferred by the State of Gujarat under Sec. 378(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 29.10.2004, recorded by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Sabarkantha at Himmiatnagar, in Atrocity Case No. 20 of 2004.

(2.) It is the case of the prosecution that on 26.06.2003, the complainant went to participate in a general meeting of Gadhda Shamalji Milk Mandal, wherein common question arose for new committee as the earlier members elected their wives as a member of committee members. Therefore, the complainant alongwith others raised his voice against the same. The accused was the Secretary of Mandali who suddenly stood up and asked the complainant to go out of the meeting in abusive language i.e. "Tu Bahar Nikal, Tane Bolvano Adhikar Nathi." In turn, the complainant also told the accused that he has also no right to speak. The complainant also told the accused to speak in a manner like human being. Further, the Chairman also warned the Secretary i.e. the accused to behave properly. However, the accused did not pay any heed to instruction of Chiarman and started again speaking in bad manner i.e. "Sala tu Bahar Nikli Ja, nahitar Joya Jevi Thase". Therefore, the complainant again asked the accused to talk properly. However, accused in turn added "Sala Dheda jaldi Bahar Nikli Ja, Nahitar Jan thi Mari Nakhish". Thus, the complainant in general was humiliated by the accused for his caste. Therefore, he filed the complaint against the accused with Khedbramha Police Station. Upon filing of the complaint with Khedbramha Police Station, the investigation was carried out by the Investigating Officer, who after completion of the investigation and after drawing the necessary panchnamas as per legal procedures, as per Sec. 173(2) of the code of Criminal Procedure, submitted chargesheet against the present respondent -accused before the court of the learned Judicial Magistrate First class, Khedbramha. However, as the case was exclusively Sessions triable, as per Sec. 209 of the code of Criminal Procedure, the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Khedbramha committed the said case to the Sessions Court, Himmatnagar which in turn transferred the case to the present Court i.e. the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 4th Fast Track Court, Himmatnagar for final disposal. The learned trial Court framed charges against the accused -respondent to which he filed plea denying his involvement in the offence in toto and pleaded for trial. After going through the submission referred to by the learned advocates for the parties, the learned Judge vide order dated 29.10.2004 acquitted the present accused -respondent of the offences with which he was charged. Therefore, the present appeal.

(3.) Mr. Rutviz Oza, learned APP vehemently submitted that the judgment and order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge is against the provisions of law that the Trial Court has not properly considered the evidence led by the prosecution and looking to the provisions of law itself it is established that the prosecution has proved all the ingredients of alleged charges against the present respondent -accused. Learned APP has also taken this Court through the oral as well as the entire documentary evidence and submitted that the present appeal deserves to be allowed.