STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. BHARVAD JAGDISHBHAI VALABHAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned APP Ms. Krina Calla for the appellant State. Appeal is admitted. This appeal is preferred under Section 378 of the Criminal Procedure Code by the appellant State against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 09. 02. 2009 passed by the learned Special Judge, Surendranagar, Camp at Limbadi in Special Case No. 12/2007 by which the learned Judge acquitted the respondents for the offences punishable under Sections 504, 323, 324, 506 (2) r/w. Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code, under Section 3 (1) (x) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 ("atrocities Act" for short) and under Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act.

(2.) AS per the prosecution case, the complainant Prakashbhai Nanjibhai Parmar lodged the complaint in connection with the incident which took place on 22. 09. 2003 at about 16. 15 hours near Limbadia Hanuman, Limbadi. The complainant asked Vishalbhai, who was with him to keep umbrella in upright position. However, the respondent inquired about the caste of the complainant, started abusing him and had beaten the complainant. The respondent No. 2 gave stick blow on the right leg of the complainant. Thus, the complaint was given by Prakashbhai Nanjibhai Parmar. On the strength of the complaint given by Prakshbhai Nanjibhai Parmer, the investigation was set in motion. The panchnama of the scene of offence was prepared. The Investigating Officer recorded the statements of the witnesses. At the conclusion of the investigation, a charge-sheet came to be filed against the respondents for the offences punishable under Sections 504, 323, 324, 506 (2) r/w. Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code, under Section 3 (1) (x) of the Atrocities Act and under Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act. The accused were produced before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Limbadi, who, in turn, committed the case to the Court of Sessions under Section 209 of the Criminal Procedure Code as the case was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions Charges against the respondents was framed by the learned Sessions Judge vide Ex. 3 and the respondents pleaded not guilty to the charges levelled against them. The prosecution, therefore, examined as many as thirteen witnesses and produced documentary evidence such as the complaint vide Ex. 23, medical certificate of the injured vide Ex. 12, panchnama of the scene of offence vide Ex. 30 and FIR vide Ex. 35 etc. to prove the involvement of the respondents in the commission of offence. The learned Judge after considering the evidence on record of the case held that the prosecution has not established the involvement of the respondents in the commission of offence by adducing cogent and convincing evidence. The learned Judge held that the evidence adduced by the prosecution is full of contradiction and, therefore, the same cannot be relied upon to convict the respondents for the offences punishable under Sections 504, 323, 324, 506 (2) r/w. Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code, under Section 3 (1) (x) of the Atrocities Act and under Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act. Even on perusal of the deposition adduced by the complainant, he could not identify the respondents who were involved in the commission of crime and could identify the respondents only at the behest of the Police Officer. Thus, the entire incident and the involvement of the respondents in the commission of crime, raises doubt and, therefore, the learned Judge acquitted the respondents the offences punishable under Sections 504, 323, 324, 506 (2) r/w. Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code, under Section 3 (1) (x) of the Atrocities Act and under Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act.

(3.) THE learned APP Ms. Krina Calla for the State submitted that the prosecution has adduced oral deposition and examined as many as thirteen witnesses to prove the inextricable involvement of the respondents in the commission of crime. The complainant Prakashbhai Nanjibhai Parmar is examined vide Ex. 22, witness Nanjibhai Lakhabhai Parmar, Chetankumar Ramanbhai Makvana, Vishalbhai Dipakbhai Vankar and Ratilalbhai Talshibhai are examined vide Exhs. 25, 26, 28 and 29 respectively, while Dr. Bhupendrakumar Nandlal Ruparel is examined vide Ex. 40. These witnesses indicated the involvement of the respondents in the commission of offence. If their depositions are perused in proper perspective then it becomes clear that the respondents were involved in the commission of offence and committed the offences punishable under Sections 504, 323, 324, 506 (2) r/w. Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code, under Section 3 (1) (10) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and under Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act. The complaint is at Ex. 23 and the panchnama of the scene of offence at Ex. 30 further corroborate the prosecution story about involvement of the respondents in the commission of offence. . However, the learned APP submitted that the trial Court has committed egregious error in not appreciating the entire record of the case, more particularly, the oral depositions and documentary evidence in true perspective and, therefore, the judgment and order passed by the learned Judge deserves to be quashed and set aside and the respondents be convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 504, 323, 324, 506 (2) r/w. Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code, under Section 3 (1) (x) of the of Atrocities Act and under Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act.