Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Shetansinh @ Chetansinh Jaswantsinh ... on 21 April, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1251/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/04/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1251 of 2010
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE S.V. PINTO Sd/-
=============================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
=============================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
SHETANSINH @ CHETANSINH JASWANTSINH VAGHELA & ORS.
=============================================
Appearance:
MS DHWANI TRIPATHI, APP for the Appellant(s) No. 1
BAILABLE WARRANT UNSERVED for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 2
MR J G VAGHELA(3971) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1
RULE NOT RECD BACK for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 2
UNSERVED EXPIRED (R) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 3
=============================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE S.V. PINTO
Date : 21/04/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant - State under Section 378(1)(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') against the judgment and the order dated 17.06.2009 in Special Atrocity Case No.230 of 2007 passed by the learned Presiding Officer and Additional Sessions Judge, 2nd Fast Track Court, Deesa Camp at Deodar (hereinafter Page 1 of 20 Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Tue Apr 22 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Apr 22 22:04:19 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1251/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/04/2025 undefined referred to as 'the learned Trial Court'), whereby, the learned Trial Court has acquitted the respondents - accused from the offences punishable under Sections 323, 325 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as 'the IPC'), Section 3(1)(10) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Atrocity Act') and Section 135 of the B.P.Act.
1.1. The respondents are hereinafter referred to as 'the accused' as they stood in the rank and file in the original case, for the sake of convenience, clarity and brevity.
2. As per the order passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court, bailable warrants were issued to the each of the respondents. As per the communication of learned 4th Additional Sessions Judge, District Banaskantha at Palanpur dated 03.12.2022, as per report of the Deodar Police Station the bailable warrant had been served upon the respondent No. 1 - original accused No. 1 and as per the certificate of Sarpanch of village Forana, Taluka Deodar, District Banaskantha dated 25.11.2022, the respondent No.2 namely Laxmansinh @ Lakhubha Bhurji Sodha has expired Page 2 of 20 Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Tue Apr 22 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Apr 22 22:04:19 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1251/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/04/2025 undefined on 25.11.2022 and the copy of the death certificate of the accused No.2 has been submitted along with the report of the Police Inspector, Deodar Police Station. The same is taken on record, and hence, the appeal qua, the respondent No.2 stands disposed of as abated.
3. The relevant facts leading to filing of the present appeal are as under:
3.1. On 11.08.2006 at around 6:00am, the complainant Rameshbhai Dhanabhai Majirana had gone to answer nature's call near his agricultural field, and at that time, both the accused came and asked him, from whom, had he taken money to release the mortgage of the land, which was mortgaged to them earlier. The accused No.2 took the stick and hit the complainant on the elbow of his left hand and the accused No.1 assaulted the complainant with the stick and gave him 2 to 3 blows on the shin of the left leg and he sustained a fracture and as he started shouting, his wife Naviben and son Obambhai came running and the accused took their sticks and ran away. The complaint was filed by the complainant Rameshbhai Dhanabhai Majirana at Deodar Police Page 3 of 20 Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Tue Apr 22 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Apr 22 22:04:19 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1251/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/04/2025 undefined Station under Sections 323, 325 and 114 of the IPC, Section 135 of the B.P.Act and Section 3(1)(10) of the Atrocities Act, which was registered as Deodar Police Station I-CR No.64 of 2006. 3.2. After registration of the FIR, the investigation was carried out by the concerned Investigating Officer and after having sufficient material against the accused, the chargesheet came to be filed before the concerned jurisdictional Magistrate. As the case was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, after completion of the process under Section 209 of the Cr.P.C., the case was committed to the Sessions Court and the same was registered as Special Atrocity Case No.230 of 2007.
3.3. The accused were duly served with the summons and the accused appeared before the learned Trial Court and it was verified whether the copies of all the police papers were provided to the accused as per the provisions of Section 207 of the Code. A charge was framed by the learned Trial Court at Exh.5 and the statements of the accused were recorded at Exhs.6 and 7 respectively, wherein, the accused denied all the contents of the charge and the entire evidence of the prosecution was taken on Page 4 of 20 Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Tue Apr 22 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Apr 22 22:04:19 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1251/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/04/2025 undefined record. The prosecution has examined 13 witnesses and has produced 12 documentary evidences in support of the case. 3.4. After the closing pursis was submitted by the learned APP at Exh.51, the further statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Code was recorded. After hearing the arguments of the learned APP and learned advocate for the accused and after perusing the documents on record, the learned Trial Court, by the impugned judgment and order, has acquitted the accused.
4. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Trial Court, the appellant - State has filed the present appeal mainly stating that the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Trial Court is contrary to law, evidence on record and principles of justice. The learned Trial Court has not properly appreciated the oral as well as documentary evidence on record it its true spirit. The the learned Trial Court has erred in coming to conclusion that the learned Trial Court has failed to prove the case of the prosecution beyond the reasonable doubt. The learned Trial Court has erred in acquitting the accused through there are ample and Page 5 of 20 Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Tue Apr 22 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Apr 22 22:04:19 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1251/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/04/2025 undefined cogent evidence to connect the accused with the crime and the offences registered against them. The learned Trial Court has also committed an error in arriving at the conclusion that though the complainant and the prosecution witnesses have fully supported the case of the prosecution and there are no material contradictions, the learned Trial Court has acquitted the accused. The impugned judgment and order of acquittal passed by the learned Trial Court is illegal, invalid, improper, perverse and bad in law and the same deserves to be quashed and set aside.
5. Heard learned APP Ms.Dhwani Tripathi for the appellant - State and learned advocate Mr.J.G.Vaghela for the accused. Perused the impugned judgment and order of acquittal and have re-appreciated the entire evidence of the prosecution on record of the case.
6. Learned APP Ms.Dhwani Tripathi for the appellant - State has taken this Court through the entire evidence produced by the prosecution and has vehemently argued that the learned Trial Court has not appreciated the evidence properly and the prosecution has produced cogent evidence to prove the the case Page 6 of 20 Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Tue Apr 22 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Apr 22 22:04:19 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1251/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/04/2025 undefined and has successfully proved the case against the accused but the learned Trial Court has not considered the same and has acquitted the accused. The judgment and order of acquittal passed by learned Trial Court is contrary to law, evidence on record and principles of justice. The judgment and order of acquittal passed by Judge is based on inferences, not warranted by facts of the case and also on presumption, not permitted by law. Learned APP has urged this Court to quash and set aside the impugned judgment and order of acquittal and to find the accused guilty for the said offence. Learned APP has urged this Court to allow the present appeal and impose maximum sentence on the accused.
7. Learned advocate Mr.J.G.Vaghela for the respondents
- original accused has submitted that the learned Trial Court has appreciated all the evidence in true perspective and has not committed any error in acquitting the accused. Therefore, no interference of this Court is required in the impugned judgment and the order of acquittal passed by the learned Trial Court and has urged this Court to reject the appeal.
8. At the outset, before discussing the facts of the present Page 7 of 20 Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Tue Apr 22 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Apr 22 22:04:19 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1251/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/04/2025 undefined case, it would be appropriate to refer to the observations of the Apex Court in the case of Chandrappa & Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka reported in 2007 (4) SCC 415, the Apex Court has observed as under:
Recently, in Kallu Vs. State of M.P. (2006) 10 SCC 313 :
AIR 2006 SC 831, this Court stated; "While deciding an appeal against acquittal, the power of the Appellate Court is no less than the power exercised while hearing appeals against conviction. In both types of appeals, the power exists to review the entire evidence. However, one significant difference is that an order of acquittal will not be interfered with, by an appellate court, where the judgment of the learned Trial Court is based on evidence and the view taken is reasonable and plausible. It will not reverse the decision of the learned Trial Court merely because a different view is possible. The appellate court will also bear in mind that there is a presumption of innocence in favour of the accused and the accused is entitled to get the benefit of any doubt. Further if it decides to interfere, it should assign reasons for differing with the decision of the learned Trial Court". (emphasis supplied) ........ From the above decisions, in our considered view, the following general principles regarding powers of appellate Court while dealing with an appeal against an order of acquittal emerge;] (1) An appellate Court has full power to review, reappreciate and reconsider the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded;
(2) The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 puts no limitation, restriction or condition on exercise of such power and an appellate Court on the evidence before it may reach its own conclusion, both on questions of fact and of law; (3) Various expressions, such as, 'substantial and compelling reasons', 'good and sufficient grounds', 'very strong circumstances', 'distorted conclusions', 'glaring mistakes', etc. are not intended to curtail extensive powers of an appellate Court in an appeal against acquittal. Such Page 8 of 20 Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Tue Apr 22 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Apr 22 22:04:19 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1251/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/04/2025 undefined phraseologies are more in the nature of 'flourishes of language' to emphasize the reluctance of an appellate Court to interfere with acquittal than to curtail the power of the Court to review the evidence and to come to its own conclusion.
(4) An appellate Court, however, must bear in mind that in case of acquittal, there is double presumption in favour of the accused. Firstly, the presumption of innocence available to him under the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that every person shall be presumed to be innocent unless he is proved guilty by a competent court of law. Secondly, the accused having secured his acquittal, the presumption of his innocence is further reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by the learned Trial Court.
(5) If two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the appellate court should not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by the learned Trial Court.
9. It is a settled principle of law that in an appeal against acquittal, the Appellate Court is circumscribed by limitation that no interference has to be made in the order of acquittal unless after appreciation of the evidence produced before the learned Trial Court, it appears that there are some manifest illegality of perversity which could not have been possibly arrived at by the Court. It is also a settled principle that there is no embargo on the Appellate Court to review the evidence but, generally the order of acquittal shall not be interfered with as the presumption of innocence of the accused is further strengthened by the order of Page 9 of 20 Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Tue Apr 22 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Apr 22 22:04:19 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1251/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/04/2025 undefined acquittal. The golden thread which runs through the web of administration of justice in criminal cases is that if two views are possible on the evidence adduced in the case of the prosecution i.e.
(i) guilt of the accused and (ii) his innocence, the view, which is in favour of the accused, should be adopted, and if the learned Trial Court has taken the view in favour of the accused, the Appellate Court should not disturb the findings of the acquittal. The Appellate Court can interfere with the judgment and order of acquittal only when there are compelling and substantial reasons and the order is clearly unreasonable and where the Appellate Court comes to conclusion that based on the evidence, the conviction is a must.
10.1. The prosecution has examined PW-1 Devsibhai Bhemabhai Sodha at Exh.15 and PW-2 Ratabhai Ajabhai Wajir at Exh,17. Both the witnesses are the panch witnesses of the arrest panchnama produced at Exh.16, whereby, the accused No.1 was arrested and he had voluntarily given the stick that was used in the incident. Both the witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution and have stated that they had merely affixed their Page 10 of 20 Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Tue Apr 22 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Apr 22 22:04:19 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1251/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/04/2025 undefined thumb impression on the panchnama.
10.2. The prosecution has examined PW-3 Naviben Rameshbhai at Exh.25 and the witness has stated that her husband, the complainant, had gone to answer nature's call towards his field and she heard him shouting, she ran and went and saw both the accused assaulting her husband with sticks. That her son Ambo Pramobhai and Bhavabhai also ran and came and the accused saw them and ran away. Her husband was injured on the leg and hand and he was taken to the Government Hospital at Deodar and he had filed the complaint. During the cross-examination by the learned advocate for the accused, the witness has stated that their agricultural field has been mortgaged with the accused and they are cultivating the same and are taking crops in three seasons. There is a bore well for irrigation in the land and she had gone along with her husband while he was filing the complaint. That they had given the name of one accused as they did not know the name of the other accused and they had stated that the other accused was the sister's son of the accused No.2, but she does not know how many nephews the accused No.2 has.
Page 11 of 20 Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Tue Apr 22 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Apr 22 22:04:19 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1251/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/04/2025 undefined 10.3. The prosecution has examined PW-4 Premabhai Rameshbhai at Exh.26 and the witness has stated that their field was mortgaged to the accused for a period of five years, but thereafter, they had released the land from mortgage. That the accused were having a grudge and they wanted to know where they had brought the money from and when his father had gone to answer nature's call, he suddenly heard him shouting and his mother and brothers went running and they saw that the accused were assaulting his father with sticks. That his father had sustained a fracture on his leg. During the cross-examination by the learned advocate for the accused, the witness has stated that the residence of the accused is near the field, which was mortgaged to them and next to that is the waste land. That when he reached the place of incident, the accused had already left and he saw his father lying on the ground. The incident has occurred at around 6:00am, and at that time, it was a little dark. 10.4. The prosecution has examined PW-5 Bavabhai Ramsibhai at Exh.28 and the witness is the brother-in-law of the complainant, who has supported the case of the prosecution and Page 12 of 20 Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Tue Apr 22 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Apr 22 22:04:19 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1251/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/04/2025 undefined has stated that when he heard the shouts and reached the place, the accused had beaten his brother-in-law and gone away. During the cross-examination by the learned advocate for the accused, the witness has stated that he does not know for how long period was the mortgaged deed executed and the agricultural land was still in the possession of the accused. That when he went to the place of incident, only his brother-in-law was at that place and there was no other person with him.
10.5. The prosecution has examined PW-6 Ambabhai Rameshbhai at Exh.30 and the witness is the son of the complainant, who has supported the case of the prosecution. During the cross-examination by the learned advocate for the accused, the witness has stated that the mortgage was released about 2 ½ years earlier and when he went to the place of incident, his father was lying on the ground, and thereafter, the other persons came running. That his father had informed him that the accused had assaulted him and he had gone along with his father to file the complaint. That they had taken Mafaji Darbar along with them and his father could not speak while he was at the police Page 13 of 20 Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Tue Apr 22 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Apr 22 22:04:19 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1251/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/04/2025 undefined station and Mafaji Darbar told the police to write the complaint, and hence. the police had written the complaint. 10.6. PW-7 Dr. Mehulbhai Dalpatbhai Modh examined at Exh.31 is the Medical Officer, having his medical practice in the name of Ashirwad Hospital and is an M.S. Orthopedic Surgeon. The witness has stated that on 11.08.2006 at around 10:00am, Rameshbhai Dhanabhai Majirana was brought to him with a referred chit from CHC, Deodar and he had a fracture on the left leg. The fracture was a grade-III fracture and there was also an injury on the left elbow. The injury was by a hard and blunt substance and could be sustained by a stick. The relatives of the injured had stated that he was injured in an assault at 6:00am. The Medical Certificate has been produced at Exh.32 and during the cross examination by the learned advocate for the accused, the witness has stated that if a person was injured by the horns of a bullock, the person could sustain such type of injuries and the injured did not name any person as the persons who had assaulted him.
10.7. PW-8 Raichandbhai Sendhabhai Devipujak examined Page 14 of 20 Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Tue Apr 22 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Apr 22 22:04:19 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1251/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/04/2025 undefined at the Exh.35 has stated that he is residing near the place of the complainant and he has not seen that the complainant had a fight with any person. The witness has not supported the case of the prosecution and has been declared hostile and has been cross- examined at length by the learned APP, but nothing to support the case of the prosecution has come on record.
10.8. PW-9, Amratlal Harjivanbhai A.S.I., Buckle No.1371, examined at the Exh.36 was the PSO of Deodar Police Station, who had registered the complaint of the complainant at Station Diary Entry No.7. on 11.08.2007.
10.9. The prosecution has examined PW-10 Dr. Pravinbhai Nathalal Solanki at Exh.41 and the witness was working as a Medical Officer in the Referral Hospital, Deodar on 11.06.2008. The witness has stated that Rameshbhai Dhanabhai Majirana, residing at village Forana, was brought with the yadi of the Deodar Police Station and in the history, he had stated that Lakshmansingh Darbar had assaulted him with a stick on 11.06.2006 at around 6:00am. On examinination, the patient was conscious and he had the following injuries; (i) Diffuse swelling on left leg lower 1/3 Page 15 of 20 Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Tue Apr 22 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Apr 22 22:04:19 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1251/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/04/2025 undefined part with some deformity and tenderness was present. Clinically there was a fracture of left lower leg, both bones with fracture, left tibia and left fibula, (ii) Diffuse swelling on left lower leg upper 1/3 part lateral aspect, clinically fracture of left fibula, upper 1/3,
(iii) Diffused tender swelling on left elbow and left forearm upper 1½ part. The patient was referred to General Hospital, Palanpur for expert opinion and management and the Medical Certificate is produced at Exh.. 43. The witness has stated that the injuries were possible by a hard and blunt substance and the age of injury was within 24 hours. During the cross-examination by the learned advocate for the accused, the witness has stated that if a person was working in the field and a bullock picks him up and dashed him to the ground, he could sustain such type of injuries. 10.10. The prosecution has examined PW-11, Jayantibhai Mansingbhai at Exh.44 and PW-12 Dineshbhai Pethabhai at Exh.46. Both the witnesses are the panch witnesses of the arrest panchnama, by which, the accused No.2 was arrested and the same is produced at Exh.45. The witnesses have not supported the case of the persecution and have been declared hostile and Page 16 of 20 Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Tue Apr 22 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Apr 22 22:04:19 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1251/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/04/2025 undefined cross-examined at length by the learned APP. 10.11. The prosecution has examined PW-13 Sylvester Khandas Macwan at Exh.47 and the witness is the Investigating Officer who has narrated in detail the entire procedure undertaken by him during investigation. During the cross-examination by the learned advocate for the accused, the witness has stated that during investigation it was found that there was no document executed for release of the mortgage and the Mortgage Deed was seized from the complainant.
11. On minute appreciation of the entire evidence of the prosecution, the complainant has expired during trial, and hence, the complainant has not been examined before the learned Trial Court. Admittedly, there are no eye witnesses to the incident and PW-3 Naviben Rameshbhai, PW-4 Premabhai Rameshbhai, PW-5 Bavabhai Rameshbhai and PW-6 Ambabhai Rameshbhai have stated that they heard the complainant shouting and they went, and at that time, there were no other persons besides the complainant. The evidence that has emerged on record is also that it was dark and at 6:00am early in the morning and they did not Page 17 of 20 Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Tue Apr 22 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Apr 22 22:04:19 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1251/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/04/2025 undefined see any other persons there except that the complainant Rameshbhai Dhanabhai had sustained injuries on his leg. PW-8. Raichandbhai Sendhabhai Devipujak is the only independent eye witness, but he has turned hostile and he has not supported the case of the prosecution and he has categorically stated that he did not hear any fight of Rameshbhai Dhanabhai with any other person. Immediately after the incident, the complainant was taken to the Referral Hospital for treatment and thereafter to the Ashirwad Hospital, but the complainant has not named any of the persons as the assaulters in the history before PW-7, Dr. Mehulbhai Dalpatbhai Modh. In the history before the Medical Officer at the Referral Hospital, Deodar, the complainant has named the accused No.2, but the history was given by himself wherein he has named only the accused No.2 the person, who has assaulted him. As per the case of the prosecution, the grudge of the accused was that the agricultural land of the complainant was mortgaged to the accused and the complainant had released the mortgage and had paid them the amount and they were upset about the release of the mortgage and they were asking him as to whom he had got the money for release of the mortgage, but the Page 18 of 20 Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Tue Apr 22 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Apr 22 22:04:19 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1251/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/04/2025 undefined Investigating Officer has clearly stated that he did not find any deed whereby the mortgage was released. The Mortgage Deed was found from the custody of the complainant and there is no evidence on record that the Mortgage Release Deed of the land was executed between the parties. Moreover, if the Caste Certificate, which is produced at Exh.48, is perused, it shows the surname of the complainant as Bhil, but in the complaint, the complainant is shown as Rameshbhai Dhanabhai Majirana. No witnesses have been examined to prove the Caste Certificate produced at Exh.48 and the learned Trial Court has discussed the entire evidence in proper perspective.
12. In view of the above, the learned Trial Court has appreciated the entire evidence in proper perspective and there does not appear to be any infirmity and illegality in the impugned judgment and order of acquittal. The learned Trial Court has appreciated all the evidence and this Court is of the considered opinion that the learned Trial Court was completely justified in acquitting the accused of the charges leveled against them. The findings recorded by the learned Trial Court are absolutely just Page 19 of 20 Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Tue Apr 22 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Apr 22 22:04:19 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1251/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/04/2025 undefined and proper and no illegality or infirmity has been committed by the learned Trial Court and this Court is in complete agreement with the findings, ultimate conclusion and the resultant order of acquittal recorded by the learned Trial Court. This Court finds no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment and order and the present appeal is devoid of merits and resultantly, the same is dismissed.
13. The impugned judgment and the order dated 17.06.2009 in Special Atrocity Case No.230 of 2007 passed by the learned Presiding Officer and Additional Sessions Judge, 2nd Fast Tract Court, Deesa camp at Deodar is hereby confirmed.
14. Bail bond stands cancelled. Record and proceedings be sent back to the concerned learned Trial Court forthwith.
Sd/-
(S. V. PINTO,J) F.S.KAZI Page 20 of 20 Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Tue Apr 22 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Apr 22 22:04:19 IST 2025