STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. GOKALBHAI AMBAVIBHAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned A. P. P. Mr. A. J. Desai appearing for the appellant-State. The appeal is admitted.

(2.) THIS appeal is preferred under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 12. 03. 2009 passed by the learned Special Judge (Atrocities) and Presiding Officer, F. T. C. No. 3, Gondal at Dholaji in Sessions Case No. 23 of 2007.

(3.) AS per the prosecution case, complainant Madhabhai Lakhabhai Ranva lodged complaint against the respondents being C. R. No. II-3010 of 1999 before Patanvav police station for the offence punishable under Sections 504, 506 (2), 427, 447 read with Section 114 of I. P. C. as well as under Section 3 (1) (x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short, "atrocities Act" ). The incident took place on 28. 01. 1999 at about 9:00 hrs. The respondents entered into the farm of the complainant on tractor (bulldozer) and caused damage to the standing crops of 'bordi'. There was heated exchange of words between the complainant and respondents. The respondents used abusive language to the complainant and, therefore, the complaint was lodged by the complainant. On the strength of the complaint, the investigation was set in motion. At the conclusion of investigation, the respondents were chargesheeted and produced before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Rajkot, who, in turn, made over the case to the Sessions Court as the case was exclusively triable by the Sessions Court. The charge was framed against the respondents and the respondents pleaded not guilty to the charge levelled against them. The prosecution, during the course of trial, examined three witnesses namely, PW. 1-Madhabhai vide Exh. 26, PW. 2-Meghjibhai Maghabhai vide Exh. 28 and PW. 3 Ramjibhai Jagjivanbhai investigation officer vide Exh. 35. The prosecution has also produced documentary evidence such as panchnama of the place of incident vide Exh. 36, F. I. R. vide Exh. 27 and panchnama of the arrest of the respondents vide Exh. 38. The learned Judge, on the basis of the evidence on record of the case, held that the prosecution has not established involvement of the respondents in the commission of offence punishable under Sections 504, 506 (2), 427, 447 read with Section 114 of I. P. C. as well as under Section 3 (1) (x) of the Atrocities Act. in a conclusive manner. The F. I. R. does not disclose as to how the threat was given by the respondents to the complainant. The F. I. R. and narration made therein is contradictory to the deposition adduced by P. W. 1 Madhabhai vide Exh. 26. Therefore, it would give rise to doubt about involvement of the respondents in the commission of offence which is also discussed extensively by the learned Judge. The learned Judge thus, after considering the evidence on record of the case, held that there are many contradictions in the deposition adduced by the prosecution witnesses and the documentary evidence and, therefore, he acquitted the respondents for the offence punishable under Sections 504, 506 (2), 427, 447 read with Section 114 of I. P. C. as well as under Section 3 (1) (x) of the Atrocities Act.