STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. SHAILESHBHAI AMRATBHAI PATEL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Ms. Krina P. Calla, learned APP representing the appellant-State. The appeal is admitted. This is an appeal under Sec. 378 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ["code" for short] preferred against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 4. 2. 2009 passed by the Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 2, Gandhinagar, Camp at Kalol in Special Atrocity Case No. 29 of 2008.

(2.) AS per the prosecution case, complainant Baldevbhai Chhaganbhai Sadhu filed a complaint against the respondent before Kalol City Police Station vide CR II 197 of 2007 for the offence 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]. As per the complaint, incident took place on 12. 9. 2007 at about 12. 45 hrs. When the complainant was standing near Umiya STD booth, Shaileshbhai Patel, Councillar of Ward I who is present respondent called him and inquired as to why he is preferring applications for Ward No. I in Nagarpalika. Complainant told that he had preferred application due to overflow of drainage water in the society and on hearing the reply, respondent got angry and gave two fist blows to the complainant, used filthy language and passed denigrating remarks against the complainant. On the strength of the complaint given by the complainant, investigation was set in motion. Investigating officer recorded statements of witnesses and after completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the respondent in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kalol on 23. 11. 2007. As the offence was triable by the court of learned Special Judge, the same was made over to the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gandhinagar which was numbered as Special Atrocity Case No. 29 of 2008. Charge against the respondent was framed by the learned Judge and the respondent pleaded not guilty to the charge levelled against him. Prosecution examined seven witnesses and produced documentary evidence such as panchnama of place of incident, certificate with regard to caste of the complainant obtained by the Investigating Officer etc. , to prove the case against the respondent. Learned Judge, on the strength of the oral depositions and documentary evidence on the record of the case, held that deposition adduced by the complainant is not supported by Sanjay Keshavlal Parmar who is examined by the prosecution vide exh. 19. Learned Judge held that there are material contradictions in the depositions adduced by the complainant and other prosecution witnesses and involvement of the respondent was not clear in the commission of offence. Thus, the learned Judge held that the prosecution has not established the case against the respondent beyond all reasonable doubt and as the respondent could not be identified in the scuffle that took place, the learned Judge acquitted the respondent for the offence punishable under Secs. 323, 504, 506[2] and 114 of IPC as well as under Sec. 3[1][x] of the Atrocities Act.

(3.) WE have heard learned APP Ms. Krina Calla representing the appellant-State at length and in great detail. We have also gone through the entire gamut of the oral depositions and documentary evidence adduced by the prosecution as the record and proceedings were called for in the case.