RAYSING LALSING DARBAR Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The original accused have invoked the appellate jurisdiction of this court under Sec. 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ( the CrPC for brief) against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Special and Additional Sessions Judge of Banaskantha at Palanpur on 12th July 1994 in Special Case No. 170 of 1992. Thereby appellant-accused No. 1 has been convicted of the offences punishable under sec. 333 and sec. 186 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (the IPC for brief) and also under Sec. 135 of the Bombay Police Act, 1951 (the B.P. Act for brief) and also under Sec. 3(1 )(x) of The Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (the Atrocities Act for brief) and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for 5 years and fine of Rs. 1000 in default simple imprisonment for 6 months for the offence punishable under Sec. 333 of the IPC, rigorous imprisonment for one month and fine of Rs. 100 in default simple imprisonment for 15 days for the offence punishable under Sec. 186 thereof and rigorous imprisonment for one month and fine of Rs. 100 in default simple imprisonment for 15 days for the offence punishable under Sec. 135 of the BP Act and rigorous imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs. 200 in default simple imprisonment for one month for the offence punishable under sec. 3(l)(x) of the Atrocities Act. The substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently. The learned trial Judge also convicted appellant-accused No. 2 of the offence punishable under Sec. 332 and Sec. 186 of the IPC and under Sec. 3(l)(x) of the Atrocities Act and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for 6 months and fine of Rs. 200 in default simple imprisonment for one month for the offence punishable under Sec. 332 of the IPC and rigorous imprisonment for one month and fine of Rs. 100 in default simple imprisonment for 15 days for the offence punishable under Sec. 186 thereof and rigorous imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs. 200 in default simple imprisonment for one month for the offence punishable under Sec. 3(1 )(x) of the Atrocities Act. The substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

(2.) The facts giving rise to this appeal move in a narrow compass. It is the case of the prosecution that complainant Amichand Moolabhai Parmar was serving as a Head Constable in Bhabhar at the relevant time. He belongs to the scheduled caste. He was assigned the work of serving a bailable warrant to one Fatesinh Prabhatsinh Darbar. Apropos, he appears to have set out from his police station in Bhabhar town at about 4 p.m. on 21st June 1992. He is stated to have gone to Darbarvas in the town for execution of the aforesaid bailable warrant. He is stated to have reached thereat at about 5.15 p.m. It is the prosecution case that thereat he came across the appellants-accused. They abused him and called him names. They further abused him by calling his caste names. He was also beaten by them with a stick and fisticuffs. He sustained several injuries including a fracture in his left wrist. He thereupon went to the police station and gave his complaint of the incident. It is at Ex. 37 on the record of the trial court. The Police Sub-Inspector of that police station examined as prosecution witness No. 10 at Ex. 43 on the record of the trial court investigated into the offences alleged to have been committed by the appellants-accused in the complaint. On conclusion of the investigation, the necessary charge-sheet was submitted in the Special Court of Banaskantha at Palanpur charging the appellants-accused with the offences punishable under sections 333, 186, 504 and 114 of the IPC and sec. 135 of the BP Act and sec. 3(l)(x) of the Atrocilies Act. That charge- sheet was received in the Special Court on 16th September 1992. It came to be registered as Special Case No. 170 of 1992. The charge against the appellants as the accused was framed on 15th December 1993. Neither appellant-accused pleaded guilty to the charge. They were thereupon tried. After recording the prosecution evidence and after recording the further statement of each appellant-accused under sec. 313 of the CrPC and after hearing arguments, by his judgment and order passed on 12th July 1994 in Special Case No. 170 of 1992, the learned Special and Additional Sessions Judge of Banaskantha at Palanpur convicted and sentenced the appellants-accused as aforesaid. The aggrieved accused have thereupon invoked the appellate jurisdiction of this Court by means of this appeal under Sec. 374 of the CrPC for questioning the correctness of their conviction and sentence by the learned trial Judge.

(3.) Learned Advocate Shri Patel for the appellants-accused has taken me through the entire evidence on record in support of his submission that a false case came to be filed against the appellants-accused. In any case, runs the submission of learned Advocate Shri Patel for the appellants-accused, the prosecution could not be said to have brought the guilt home to the appellants-accused beyond any reasonable doubt. As against this, learned Additional Public Prosecutor Shri Bukhari for the respondent-State has submitted that the evidence on record is clear enough to enable the court to fasten the guilt to the appellants-accused. He has further submitted that the learned trial Judge has carefully examined and appreciated the evidence on record and the finding of guilt as recorded by the learned trial Judge based on the material on record is unimpeachable. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor Shri Bukhari for the respondent-State has further urged that the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned trial Judge calls for no interference by this Court in this appeal.