STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. ANSUYABEN VENILAL PATEL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Whether acquittal of the respondent-Ansuyaben Patel of the charge of atrocity under Sec. 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 ('the Act') in Criminal Case No. 34 of 1994 recorded, on 5-9-1997, by learned Special Judge and Sessions Judge, Surat, is justified or not is the sole question raised before us in appeal under Sec. 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ('the Code').

(2.) A resume of few material facts giving rise to the appeal by the State and Criminal Revision Application No. 604 of 1997 by the original complainant may be narrated, at the outset. Upon complaint Ex. 37 lodged on 19-3-1994 at 7 p.m., before the P.S.I., Rander police station of Surat city by the complainant for an incident alleged to have occurred on 16-3-1994 at 8 a.m., in the school known as Nutan Vidyalaya Primary School, the respondent-original accused came to be charged vide Ex. 4 for having committed offence of atrocity against the complainant punishable under Sec. 3(1)(x) of the Act being Criminal Case No. 34 of 1994, which culminated into acquittal of the accused by the learned Special Judge upon assessment of evidence and appraisal of facts and circumstances and examination of relevant provisions of the Act. In that, the prosecution had alleged that the complainant Devkala and the accused Ansuyaben were employees of the said school. The complainant was a teacher, whereas, the respondent-accused was administrator and thereby on the management side. The prosecution case further as alleged was that on account of animosity, the accused on 16-3-1994 at 8 a.m., inquired of the time-table, Thereafter, the accused asked the complainant as to where and how the time-table is lost and thereafter the accused told the complainant : "This is not residential area of Harijans that you are showing colour of that community". The complainant belongs to Scheduled Caste and by uttering aforesaid prohibited words, the accused committed an offence punishable under Sec. 3(1)(x) of the Act, as per the prosecution version.

(3.) The prosecution placed reliance on the evidence of the following witnesses : 1. Devkalaben Parmar, Ex. 14 2. Jagrutiben Patel, Ex. 31 3. Anjanaben Subhashchandra, Ex. 35 4. Karansinh Gohil, Ex. 27 5. Hemlataben Randeria, Ex. 47 and 6. Bhavnaben Rajput, Ex. 48 The prosecution also placed reliance on the following documentary evidence : 1. Original complaint, Ex. 37; 2. Certificate of Caste of complainant.