STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. JAGDISHBHAI GANGARAMBHAI VANAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Ms. Krina P. Calla, learned Addl. PP representing the appellant State. The appeal is admitted.

(2.) PRESENT appeal is preferred under Sec. 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ["code" for short] against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 21. 3. 2009 passed by the learned Special Judge, Fast Track Court No. 1, Surendranagar, Camp at Limbdi in Special Case No. 37 of 2007.

(3.) AS per the prosecution case, complainant was serving as Talati-cum-Mantri at Bavla Gram Panchayat, whereas respondent no. 1 was serving as Peon and respondent no. 2 was member of the Panchayat. On 17. 4. 2007, complainant told the respondent no. 1 to clean the office of Panchayat and to fill up water. Respondent no. 1 refused to do it and insulted the complainant. Respondent no. 1 called respondent no. 2 and both the respondents started giving abuses and administered threats to his life. A complaint was filed by the complainant on 17. 4. 2004 before Panshila Police Station. On the strength of the complaint, an offence was registered being II of 3026 of 2007 punishable under Secs. 504 and 506 as well as 114 of Indian Penal Code ["ipc" for short] and under Sec. 3[1][x] of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes [prevention of Atrocities] Act, 1989 ["atrocities Act" for short]. Investigating Officer carried out investigation, prepared panchnama and recorded statements of witnesses and on completion of the investigation, chargesheeted the respondents. Charge was framed against the respondents by the learned Special Judge and the respondents pleaded not guilty to the charge and, therefore, the matter was set down for full-fledged trial before the learned Sessions Judge. Learned Special Judge, on the basis of the oral depositions and the documentary evidence adduced by the prosecution held that the prosecution has not established the case against the respondents for the offence under Secs. 504, 506 and 114 of IPC and Sec. 3[1][x] of the Atrocities Act in conclusive manner and as there were many contradictions in the oral depositions and documentary evidence, the learned Special Judge acquitted the respondents.