STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. BABUBHAI BHOJABHAI GOVADIAYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned APP Mr. A. J. Desai representing the appellant-State. Admit. This is an appeal preferred under Sec. 378[1][3] of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ["code" for short] against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 17th April, 2009, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, FTC No. 3, Camp at Botad in Special Atrocity Case No. 12 of 2008 by which, the learned Additional Sessions acquitted the respondent for the offence punishable under Secs. 504 and 506[2] of Indian Penal Code ["ipc" for short] and Sec. 3[1][x] of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe [prevention of Atrocities] Act, 1989 ["atrocity Act" for short].

(2.) AS per the prosecution case, incident took place on 2. 7. 2007 around 4. 00 p. m. , wherein, the respondent abused the complainant and thereby committed an offence punishable under Secs. 504 and 506[2] of the IPC and Sec. 3[1][x] of the Atrocity Act. A complaint was filed by Varshaben Alabhai at Gadhda Police Station. On the strength of the complaint, investigation was set in motion. At the conclusion of the investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the respondent before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Gadhda, who, in turn, committed the case to the Sessions Court under Sec. 209 of the Code as the case was exclusively triable by the Sessions Court. Charge was framed against the respondent and the respondent pleaded not guilty to the same. Therefore, the prosecution, in order to bring home the guilt against the respondent, examined four witnesses and produced documentary evidence such as complaint vide exh. 8, panchnama of place of incident vide exh. 13, extract of station diary vide exh. 16 etc. Learned Judge, on the basis of the evidence on the record of the case, held that the prosecution has not proved in conclusive manner involvement of the respondent in the commission of offence. Even basic ingredients contained in Sec. 3[1][x] of the Atrocity Act, are not established by the prosecution. Thus, the learned Judge acquitted the respondent under Secs. 504 and 506[2] of IPC and 3[1][x] of the Atrocity Act.

(3.) LEARNED APP Mr. A. J. Desai representing the appellant State submitted that the learned Judge has committed egregious error in not appreciating the evidence on record of the case in its true perspective. Learned APP submitted that the deposition adduced by the complainant is fully supported by the documentary evidence such as complaint, panchnama of the place of incident etc. and considering the evidence on record of the case, the learned Judge ought to have held that the prosecution has, by adducing cogent evidence, proved involvement of the respondent in the commission of offence. Learned APP submitted that there are infirmities in the order passed by the learned Judge and therefore, considering the evidence on the record of the case, the order passed by the learned Judge deserves to be quashed and set aside and the appeal be allowed and the respondent be convicted for the offences charged against him.