STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. RAVINDRA BAHADURSINH SHREERAMLAGANSINH RAJPUT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned APP Ms. Krina Calla for the appellant State. Appeal is admitted. This appeal is preferred by the appellant State under Section 378 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 03. 02. 2009 passed by the learned Special Judge, City Sessions Court, Ahmedabad in Atrocity Criminal Case No. 1 of 2007 by which the learned Judge acquitted the respondent for the offences punishable under Sections 294 (b) and 506 (2) of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 3 (1) (x) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 ("atrocities Act" for short ).

(2.) AS per the prosecution case, Ghanshyambhai Laljibhai Solanki lodged the complaint on 31. 03. 2006 before the Maninagar Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 294 (b) and 506 (2) of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 3 (1) (x) of the Atrocities) Act. On the strength of the complaint given by the complainant, the investigation was set in motion. At the conclusion of the investigation, the respondent was charge-sheeted and produced before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Court No. 15, Ahmedabad, who, in turn, made over the case to the Court of Sessions as the case was exclusively triable by Sessions Court. The charge was framed against the respondent and the respondent pleaded not guilty to the charge levelled against him. The prosecution, therefore, examined as many as seven witnesses and produced on record the documentary evidence such as a complaint vide Ex. 13, panchnama of the place of occurrence vide Ex. 33, panchnama of body of accused vide Ex. 35 etc. The learned Judge on appreciation of the evidence on record of the case held that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the involvement of the respondent in the commission of offence in conclusive manner. The evidence adduced by the prosecution is inconsistent and as there was lacuna in the evidence adduced by the prosecution, the learned Judge acquitted the respondent for the offences punishable under Sections 294 (b) and 506 (2) of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 3 (1) (x) of the Atrocities) Act.

(3.) LEARNED APP Ms. Krina Calla for the State submitted that the prosecution has examined as many as seven witnesses in order to prove the involvement of the respondent in the commission of offence. The deposition adduced by the complainant Ghanshyambhai is at Ex. 12 wherein he has narrated the incident and the involvement of the respondent is also indicated by the complainant in his complaint at Ex. 13. The other witnesses Nagarbhai B. Parmar and Piyushbhai B. Parmar examined vide Exs. 30 and 31 respectively supported the prosecution story about the involvement of the respondent in the commission of offence. Learned APP submitted that the documentary evidence such as complaint at Ex. 13, the report under Section 157 of the Criminal Procedure Code at Ex. 23, panchnama of place of occurrence at Ex. 33 and panchnama of the body of the accused at Ex. 35 corroborate the prosecution story about the involvement of the respondent in the commission of offence. The learned APP submitted that the learned Judge has not appreciated the evidence on record of the case in its true perspective, while acquitting the respondents for the offences punishable under Sections 294 (b) and 506 (2) of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 3 (1) (x) of the Atrocities Act. The judgment and order passed by the learned Judge is not based on the entire oral deposition and documentary evidence adduced by the prosecution and, therefore, the judgment and order deserves to be quashed and set aside and the appeal be allowed and the respondent be convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 294 (b) and 506 (2) of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 3 (1) (x) of the Atrocities Act.