JESANGJI BHIKHAJI THAKOR Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY way of filing this Revision Application, the original complainant has challenged the judgment and order passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge and Fast Track Court, Palanpur in Sessions Case No. 41 of 2007 by which the learned Addl. Sessions Judge acquitted respondents No. 2 and 3 original accused for the offences punishable under sections 323, 504, 506 (2) and 114 of IPC.

(2.) HEARD learned Advocate Mr Padhya for the petitioner. As per the prosecution case, the incident took place on 2. 9. 2005. It is alleged that when the present revisionist-original complainant went to his field near havada (water tank) for grazing cattle. At that time, Sarpanch Harjivanbhai, Jahangirbhai and some other persons came there and were carrying the cement, bricks etc belonging to the petitioner in a tractor. The petitioner rushed to the spot and asked them not to remove the bricks etc. On this, the accused persons started abusing the petitioner. It is alleged that the accused asked the complainant to remove the said havada which was constructed by the him, because it is an encroachment on panchayat land. It is alleged in the complaint that, the petitioner told the Sarpanch that he constructed and said havada on kharaba land of panchayat and so it should not be removed. On saying so, the accused Sarpanch started abusing the complainant and the complainant was beaten up by the sarpanch by giving kick and fist blow. It is also alleged that during that time, Jehangirbhai, who was member of the panchayat also caused injury to the complainant by giving kick and fist blow. The petitioner and some other witnesses have received injuries. They threatened that if the havada was not removed, the petitioner would l be killed. Thereafter, people gathered there approached the respondent. Thereupon a complaint was lodged by the present petitioner before Vadgam police station which was registered as CR. II No. 3026/2005. On the basis of the complaint, offences punishable under sections 323, 504, 506 (2) read with 114 of IPC was registered. . Respondent No. 2-original accused in this case also lodged complaint against the present complainant and other witnesses for offences punishable under sections 33, 323, 324, 235, 504 and 506 (2) and 114 of IPC. Charge sheet was also filed against the present petitioner-original complainant and other accused persons. As the case was triable by the Sessions Court, the said case was committed to the Sessions Court by the learned trial court for trial and both these cases were tagged and heard together by the Sessions Judge.

(3.) HEARD learned Advocate Mr Padhya and learned APP Mr K V Pandya. Mr Pathya took this court through the judgment and order passed by the learned Sessions Judge. He has submitted that though the complainant and the witnesses received injuries which is corroborated by medical evidence, the trial court has not considered the same and by that committed error in acquitting the accused. He has submitted that the impugned judgment and order passed by the Sessions Court is legal and proper which is not required to be interfered with.