STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. DINESHBHAI MAGANBHAI PATEL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Criminal Appeal is preferred by the State under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the judgment and order delivered by Additional Sessions Judge, District Banaskantha at Palanpur on 1st of March, 2005, in Special Case No. 71 of 2003, whereby the present respondent, being accused of the said Sessions Case, came to be acquitted by the Trial Court for the offences punishable under Sections 332, 323, 504, 506(2) of the Indian Penal Code as well as for the offence punishable under Section 3(1) (10) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes ( Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

(2.) According to prosecution case, the incident occurred on 3rd of December, 2002. Complaint of which came to be filed by Complainant Manguben Nagabhai Kavasva on 7th of December, 2002 before Bhildi Police Station. According to the complaint filed, complainant Manguben was serving as teacher in primary school situated at village Gogadhani, Taluka Deesa. Head Master of the said school was transferred else where and next senior teacher refused to be the Head Master and thereafter next senior teacher accused Dineshbhai Maganbhai Patel took the charge of Head Master. During his tenure as In-charge Head Master, behaviour of the accused was not proper and according to the complainant she was senior most teacher and, therefore, applied to the TDO to designate her as In-charge Head Master. In pursuance of the order passed by the TDO on 4th of May, 2002, complainant took the charge of Head Master of the said School from the accused and from that incident the accused had enmity with the complainant. Accused was instigating other teachers also against the complainant. On 3rd of December, 2002 at about 11.15 hours the complainant Manguben was sitting in her office and a prayer was being offered in the school by the students. Other teachers were also attending the prayer. The accused came to sign muster roll and was sitting in the office of the complainant. At that time, complainant discussed one leave report preferred by the accused, in which the details were incomplete. Complainant inquired about the details but accused excited and started giving abuses to the complainant and told that she was nobody to inquire anything and seized his leave report from the table of the complainant and had torn the same. Thereafter the accused gave a slap on the face of the complainant and got out of the office. Hearing this commotion, thereafter other teachers came in the office of the complainant and since on account of slap given by the accused, cheek of the complainant was reddened, the other teachers asked about the same. The accused stated that he had not slapped the complainant but her cheek may be naturally red. On the next day accused had been on leave. The complainant filed one application about this incident to TDO at Deesa and the TDO, Deesa, instructed the complainant to file complaint and hence the complaint was given by the complainant which was registered as CR No. I-68 of 2002 at Bhildi Police Station. Investigation was carried out by PW-3 Vaghubhai Dalabhai, ASI of Bhildi Police Station and he recorded the statements of the witnesses and draw a panchnama of scene of offence. He arrested the accused and filed a charge sheet in appropriate court and since the case was required to be tried by the Special Court, the same was committed to the Court of Sessions. Vide Exhibit-7 on 18th of January, 2005, a charge was framed against the accused by the Special Judge and the accused pleaded not guilty. Therefore, the prosecution examined in all three witnesses i.e. PW-1 complainant Manguben Nagabhai at Exhibit-9; PW-2 Sunitaben Prabhudas Yadav at Exhibit-14 and PW-3 Vaghubhai Dalabhai, ASI and Investigating Officer at Bhildi Police Station at Exhibit - 17. The prosecution also tendered on record the documents like complaint at Exhibit-11, application preferred by the complainant to TDO at Exhibit 12, certificate of caste at Exhibit-15, panchnama of scene of offence at Exhibit 18, etc. In a statement under Section 313, the accused stated that he was involved in a false case and that he was innocent. After hearing both the parties, the learned Trial Judge came to the conclusion that the case was not proved beyond doubt by the prosecution and, hence, this Appeal.

(3.) Learned APP Mr. I.M. Pandya submitted vehemently that the Trial Judge erred in acquitting the accused because there was no reason to disbelieve the complainant, though no other witness is examined, it is proved through the evidence of the complainant that the accused behaved in a manner insulting the caste of the complainant and delivered a slap and threat to kill. The appreciation of evidence undertaken by the Trial Judge is erroneous as minor contradictions would not affect the prosecution case. It is submitted that the case requires consideration.