STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. THAKOR HAKAJI BABAJI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. A. J. Desai, learned APP representing the appellant-State. The appeal is admitted. This is an appeal under Sec. 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ["code" for short] against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 15. 12. 2008 passed by the learned Special Judge, Patan in Special [atrocity] Case No. 10 of 2008. As per the prosecution case, incident took place on 4. 10. 2007 at 17. 00 hrs in the evening. Respondent no. 1 removed Baval tree from the field of the complainant and had thrown the same in the field of the prosecution witness no. 6 Khetabhai Parmabhai Chaudhari and complainant Parmar Amtha Khengarbhai told him not to throw thorns of Baval tree in his field. Respondent no. 1 got excited and used filthy language to the complainant and passed denigrating remarks. Respondent no. 2 gave fist blow to the complainant and used abusive language and administered threat to the complainant. Thus, the respondents committed offence punishable under Secs. 323, 504, 506[2] and 114 of Indian Penal Code ["ipc" for short] as well as under Sec. 3[1][x] of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes [prevention of Atrocities] Act, 1989 ["atrocities Act" for short]. A complaint was given by Amthabhai Khengarbhai Parmar which was registered as II CR No. 152/07. After registration of the offence, investigation was set in motion. Investigating Officer recorded statements of witnesses, obtained caste certificate of the complainant and prepared panchnama of place of incident. At the conclusion of investigation, respondents were charge sheeted and produced before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patan and as the offence was triable by the learned Special Court, the same was made over to the learned Special Judge, Patan and was numbered as Special [atrocity] Case No. 10 of 2008. The prosecution examined seven witnesses and produced documentary evidence in order to bring home the guilt against the respondents. After recording evidence of prosecution witnesses, the learned Judge held that complainant Amthabhai Khengarbhai Parmar, in his deposition at exh. 16 has not supported the testimony of Khetabhai Parmabhai Chaudhari adduced vide exh. 25 and thus, there is material contradiction in the deposition of the complainant and PW 3 Kheta Parmabhai Chaudhari. Thus, ingredients of Secs. 323, 504, 506[2] and 114 of IPC as well as Sec. 3[1][x] of Atrocities Act have not been satisfied and, therefore, the learned Judge acquitted the respondents.

(2.) THE State being aggrieved by the said order, has preferred the present appeal mainly on the grounds that the learned Special Judge has not appreciated oral depositions adduced by the prosecution witnesses in its true perspective while acquitting the respondents. Learned Judge has committed an error in holding that the complainant who has adduced deposition vide exh. 16 does not support the prosecution story about involvement of the respondents in the commission of offence. Learned Judge has further erred in holding that the complainant does not say about the use of abusive language by the respondents and as there was not corroborative evidence to support the prosecution story, the learned Judge acquitted the respondents.

(3.) WE have heard the learned APP Mr. A. J. Desai at length and in great detail. We have also perused the reasonings given by the learned Judge and the depositions adduced by the prosecution witnesses as the record and proceedings of Special [atrocity] Case No. 10 of 2008 was called for. The prosecution has examined seven witnesses. Complainant Amthabhai Khengarbhai PW 2 has been examined vide exh. 16 and PW 3 Khetabhai Parmabhai has been examined by the prosecution vide exh. 25. On perusal of the depositions adduced by these two witnesses, it becomes clear that there are material contradictions in the depositions adduced by the complainant and PW 3 Khetabhai Parmabhai. It appears from the record of the case that even the complainant does not support the prosecution with regard to use of abusive language by the respondents and blows given to him by the respondents. Thus, complainant does not support the prosecution story in any manner whatsoever. There is vast contradiction in the deposition adduced by the complainant and the complaint, which is given by him and produced at exh. 17. Thus, prosecution, in our considered view has not established involvement of the respondents in the commission of offence.