STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. PRAGNESHKUMAR KISHORBHAI PATEL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PRESENT appeal is preferred by the State under Section 378 of the Criminal Procedure Code against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 28. 07. 2006 rendered by the learned Sessions Judge, Panchmahals in Special (Atro.) Case No. 3 of 2006, whereby the present respondent being accused of the Special Case came to be acquitted by the learned trial Court for the offences punishable under Sections 3 (1) (11) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act ('atrocities Act' for short ).

(2.) WE have called Record and Proceedings of the case from the learned trial Court and same is available. Mr. A. J. Desai, learned APP appearing on behalf of the State has taken us to the relevant documentary as well as oral evidence produced on record. He has also taken us to the judgment and order passed by the learned trial Court. We have gone through the Record and Proceedings of the case as well as the judgment and order passed by the learned trial Court acquitting the respondent for the offence punishable under Sections 3 (1) (11) of the Atrocities Act. We have heard Mr. A. J. Desai, learned APP appearing on behalf of the State in great detail and at length.

(3.) AS per the prosecution case, complainant - Minaben wife of Vechatbhai Chimanbhai Nayak lodged a complaint on 28. 01. 2006 with Halol Police Station being C. R. No. I- 13 of 2006 against the respondent herein - accused for the offences punishable under Sections 3 (1) (11) of the Atrocities Act and for the offfence alleged to have been happened on 10. 11. 2005 alleging inter-alia that her husband and her father-in-law were working in the field of the accused for one year and after completing the work they demanded to settle their account. It was also further averred in the complaint that the complainant had taken Rs. 15,000/- on credit from the accused for the marriage function, which was decided to return at the time of settlement of their account; when the complainant went to pay the said money at that time accused refused to take money. It was further averred that thereafter, the complainant had also tried to give the said money for two to three times but the accused refused to accept the said money. It was alleged in the complaint that on 10. 11. 2005 when the complainant's husband and brother-in-law went for work in the field and she was coming from her work, and when she passed from the field of one Rameshbhai at that time nobody was present surrounding the field and the accused told her why your father-in-law has not given his money and if he does not want to pay the money come with me in nearby field and he caught her hand and thereafter the accused snatched her with force for the purpose of rape and because of that her clothes were torn. It was further averred that at that time her brother-in-law reached the place of the incident, accused ran away from there and abused them regarding their caste and threatened that if they would tell anybody about the said incident, he would not allow to live them. Therefore, it was further alleged that the accused has committed the offence punishable under Sections 3 (1) (11) of the Atrocities Act.