STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. MANIBHAI GANGARAM PATEL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The State is in appeal under section 378(1)(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "the Code" for short) to question the legality and validity of the judgment and order of acquittal dated 11.01.2007 passed by the Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Modasa in Atrocity Case No.5 of 2006, whereby and where under the respondent came to be acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 323, 504, 506(2) of the Indian Penal Code ("I.P. Code" for Short) as well as Section 3(1)(x) of Scheduled Caste &Scheduled Tribe Prevention of Atrocities Act, 1989 ("Atrocity Act" for Short) read with Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act ("B.P. Act" for Short).

(2.) The brief facts of the prosecution case is that the complainant Jayantibhai Ranchhodbhai Solanki, who is a driver of Jeep No.G.J.9.M.1655, has filed his complaint against the present respondent accused person alleging inter-alia that on 17.10.2005, at about 07.00 a.m. complainant made trip from Lank to Bayad, at that time, accused come to the complainant and said that you all are like owner of the road, and therefore, you can not park your jeeps at one side of the road. At that time, complainant had not replied to the accused and went from there. At the same day, jeep was detained for carrying out illegal passengers, therefore, after showing R.C. Book, complainant released his jeep and come back to his home and on the way, accused having Maruti Car No.GJ-1-1118 and other three persons come at the Fanta village patiya which is situated at Demain Lank road had stopped jeep of the complainant and by saying that "Sala Dhedh Tu Dado Thai Gayo Chhe" and thereafter also by saying abuses to his caste and his mother and sister inflicted blow with hockey on the elbow of the hand of the complainant and with shouting other two persons who come with accused come near to complainant therefore, complainant run away from the place of incident. Seeing the complainant running, they also shouted that why you are runaway, to you would be killed (Kem Dode Chhe, Aajeto tane patavij devano chhe). By escaping from the hands of the accused persons, complainant reached at his home and informed all the details to the relatives of his family. Then nephew Kanubhai Valijibhai, Vinubhai Limbabhai and Janakbhai Parsottambhai shifted the complainant in the Vatrak Hospital for treatment in another jeep and complainant gave complaint in the Bayad Police Station which was registered being CR.No.II-144/2005 under Sections 323, 504, 506(2) of Indian Penal Code, under Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act and under Section 3(1)(x) of the Atrocity Act. Then after completion of investigation and after recording statements of relevant witnesses, after drawing necessary panchnamas the police prepared chargesheet against the present accused respondents and submitted the same before the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bayad which was registered as Criminal Case No.765 of 2005. However, as the case was exclusively sessions triable, the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bayad as per section 209 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 committed the said case to the Sessions Court, which was registered as Sessions Case No.5 of 2006. The accused was given all the police papers. The case was then transferred to the present court for its final disposal. The learned Judge framed charges against the accused respondent to which the accused respondent denied his involvement and pleaded to be tried. To prove its case, the prosecution has examined several witnesses and has produced documentary evidence. After filing of closing pursis, as per section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 the further statement of f the accused respondent was recorded wherein also he denied in toto about his involvement in the offence in question. However, after hearing the parties at length, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Modasa vide its order dated 11.01.2007 acquitted the accused respondent of the offence with which he was charged. Hence, this appeal.

(3.) The complaint was lodged, investigation was conducted, Panchnama was drawn, statements of the witnesses were recorded and upon completion of the investigation as sufficient evidence to link the accused with crime was revealed, the accused persons were charge-sheeted for the aforesaid offence. During the course of investigation, police recorded state as the offence committed by respondent was absolutely triable by the court of learned Sessions Judge, same was committed to the court of Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Modasa, and numbered as Atrocity Case No.5 of 2006.