STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. JETHABHAI DHUDHABHAI BHARWAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned APP Ms. Krina Calla representing the appellant State. Admit. This is an appeal preferred under Sec. 378[1][3] of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ["code" for short] against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 24th April, 2009 passed by the Special Judge, Fast Track Court No. 2, Surendranagar, Camp at Limbdi in Special Case No. 10 of 2008. The learned Special Judge, vide above judgment and order acquitted the respondent for the offence punishable under Secs. 323 and 504 of Indian Penal Code ["ipc" for short] and under Sec. 3[1][x] of the 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 Dudabhai Ranabhai which was registered as CR 3063 of 2007 with Muli Police Station for the 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 the complainant, investigation was set in motion. On completion of investigation, respondent was charge-sheeted and produced in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class at Muli, who, in turn, committed the case to the Sessions Court as the case was exclusively triable by the Sessions Court. Charge was framed against the respondent who pleaded not guilty to the charge levelled against him and claimed to be tried. The prosecution adduced oral depositions and documentary evidence in order to bring home the guilt against the respondent. Learned Judge, on the basis of the evidence on the record of the case, came to a conclusion that the deposition adduced by complainant Dudabhai vide Exh. 12 is not supported by the oral depositions or documentary evidence adduced by the prosecution. Dr. Kumarasit Ramapatikumar has been examined vide exh. 23. But he has not supported the injuries sustained by the complainant. He has deposed in his testimony that complainant had not sustained external injuries. Even, there was difference of time when the incident took place. Other witnesses have also not supported the prosecution story about involvement of the respondent in the commission of offence. Thus, learned Judge, on the basis of oral depositions and documentary evidence, held that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove involvement of the respondent in the commission of offence and, therefore, acquitted the respondent for the offences punishable under Secs. 323 and 504 of IPC and Sec. 3[1][x] of Atrocities Act.

(3.) LEARNED APP Ms. Krina Calla representing the appellant State submitted that prosecution has examined in all nine witnesses. Complainant-Dudabhai who gave complaint vide exh. 9 has been examined vide exh. 12. The version given by him in his testimony is supported by his own complaint. He sustained injuries, which is also supported by deposition of Dr. Kumarasit Ramapatikumar at exh. 23. Even the medical certificate at exh. 24 supports the prosecution story about the injuries sustained by the complainant. Thus, learned APP submitted that the prosecution, on the basis of oral depositions as well as documentary evidence has established involvement of the respondent in the commission of offence. However, the learned Judge committed error in acquitting the respondent even though cogent and convincing evidence was adduced by the prosecution. Thus, learned APP submitted that the judgment passed by the trial court suffers from infirmity and requires to be quashed and set aside.