STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. POPATJI BHURAJI VAGHELA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Appeal is preferred by the State under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the judgment and order delivered by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Banaskantha at Palanpur, on 17th of May, 2005, in Special Case No.11 of 2004, whereby the present respondent, being accused in the Special Case, came to be acquitted for the offences punishable under Sections 504, 506(2) of the Indian Penal Code and for the offences punishable under Section 3(1)(10) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

(2.) According to the prosecution case, the incident occurred on 14th of October, 2003 at 14:00 hrs. at village Madana when the complainant Savitaben, wife of Motibhai Savabhai Chamar, was going towards her house from Anganwadi (children school), when the accused-respondent met her and threatened her that why she had filed a compliant against him at Gadh Police Station and got him arrested. Thereafter, the accused insulted her caste and gave abuses. The complainant Savitaben requested him not to give abuses and thereupon, the accused got excited and threatened her to kill. The complainant filed her complaint before Gadh Police Station which is produced on record at Ex.21. A crime was registered vide Crime Register No.II-93/2003 and investigation was carried on. Thereafter, chargesheet for the abovesaid offences came to be preferred against the accused in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, First Class at Palanpur. The case was committed to Special Court and was registered as Special Case No.11 of 2004. The learned trial Judge framed charges against the accused vide Ex.4 on 21st of July, 2004, and accused-respondent pleaded Snot guilty vide Ex.5. Therefore, the prosecution examined five witnesses and submitted on record documentary evidence. The learned trial Judge recorded statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure wherein the explanation of the accused was of total denial and he further stated that to extort money from him, this false case had been filed against him. After hearing the prosecution as well as defence, the learned trial Court came to the above conclusion to acquit the respondent and hence, this Appeal.

(3.) Learned APP Mr.K.C.Shah appearing for the appellant-State vehemently urged that the complainant PW 1, Ex.14, supported the prosecution case and stated that how the incident had occurred and she also deposed about the role played by the accused in the incident. She was corroborated by her complaint. The learned APP further stated that the version of two witnesses, Kantibhai Madhabhai and Ishwarbhai Umedbhai, though one of them is eye-witness, ought to have believed by the learned trial Judge. It is urged that no reasons have been assigned by the trial Court for not believing the complainant and therefore, the matter requires consideration.