STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. RAMESHBHAI LALJIBHAI DABHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. A. J. Desai, learned APP representing the appellant-State. Admit. This appeal is preferred under Sec. 378[1][3] of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ["code" for short] against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 26. 3. 2009 passed by the Special Judge, Anand in Special [atrocity] Case No. 34 of 2008 by which the learned Special Judge acquitted the respondent for the offence under Sections 323 and 504 of Indian Penal Code ["ipc" for short] and Sec. 3[1][x] of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe [prevention of Atrocities] Act, 1989 ["atrocities Act" for short].

(2.) AS per the prosecution case, a complaint was given by Manojbhai Ravjibhai on 27. 6. 2008 vide CR II 3035/08 against the respondent at Khambholaj Police Station, Anand for offence punishable under Secs. 323 and 504 of IPC and Sec. 3[1][x] of Atrocities Act. On the strength of the complaint given by Manojbhai, investigation was set in motion. At the conclusion of investigation, respondent was charge-sheeted before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Umreth, who committed the case to the Sessions Court as the case was exclusively triable by the Sessions Court. Charge was framed against the respondent and he pleaded not guilty to the charge levelled against him. The prosecution, therefore, adduced oral depositions and documentary evidence before the learned Special Judge. The prosecution has examined in all five witnesses. Complainant-PW 3 Manojbhai Ravjibhai Harijan has been examined vide exh. 12; PW 1 Dr. Alok Rameshwar Prasad Mina has been examined vide exh. 8; PW 2 Hirubhai Bhailalbhai Patel has been examined vide exh. 10; PW 4 Nanjibhai Jummabhai, PSO has been examined vide exh. 15 and PW 5 Manojbhai Manglaji Balat, IO has been examined vide exh. 18. The prosecution produced complaint vide exh. 13, panchnama of place of incident vide exh. 11, panchnama of person of accused vide exh. 19, injury certificate issued to the complainant vide exh. 9 etc. , to prove involvement of the respondent in the commission of offence. Learned Special Judge, on the basis of the oral depositions and documentary evidence held that the prosecution has not established inextricable involvement of the respondent in commission of offence punishable under Sec. 323 and 504 of IPC and Sec. 3[1][x] of Atrocities Act. Learned Judge further held that on perusal of complaint exh. 13 given by Manojbhai Ravjibhai and his deposition at exh. 12, it becomes clear that the offence against the respondent under Sec. 3[1][x] of Atrocities Act has not been made out by the prosecution. Complainant's own version in his deposition exh. 12 is in contradiction with the complaint given by him. Learned Judge further held that it is true that the complainant sustained injuries but the injuries were caused to the complainant in minor scuffle because of the enmity with the respondent. In view of the evidence led before the learned Judge, the learned Judge held that there are many inconsistencies and contradictions in the oral depositions and documentary evidence adduced by the prosecution and, therefore, the learned Judge acquitted the respondent for the offence as mentioned above.

(3.) LEARNED APP Mr. A. J. Desai, representing the appellant-State submitted that the prosecution has examined five witnesses and produced documentary evidence such as complaint exh. 13, panchnama of place of incident exh. 11, panchnama of person of accused exh. 19 and medical certificate at exh. 9 etc. to prove involvement of the respondent in the commission of offence. Complaint given by Manojbhai is supported by his own version given in his deposition at exh. 12. Dr. Alok Meena, examined at exh. 8 also supports the prosecution version about the injuries sustained by the complainant in the scuffle. He also gave injury certificate which is produced vide exh. 9. Thus, considering the entire evidence on the record of the case, the learned APP submitted that there is no infirmity in the evidence led by the prosecution and, therefore, the learned Judge has committed egregious error in acquitting the respondent. Learned APP submitted that prosecution has also established the the entire link connecting the respondent with the commission of offence and, therefore, the order passed by the learned Judge requires to be quashed and set aside, the appeal be allowed and the respondent be punished for the offence punishable under Secs. 323 and 504 of IPC and Sec. 3[1][x] of Atrocities Act.