Gujarat High Court
The State Of Gujarat vs Latifkha Umarkha Sindhi on 27 February, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1599/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/02/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1599 of 2006
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE S.V. PINTO
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
No
==========================================================
THE STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
LATIFKHA UMARKHA SINDHI & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS. JIRGA JHAVERI, APP for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR SADIK A ANSARI(5388) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3,4
UNSERVED EXPIRED (N) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 5
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE S.V. PINTO
Date : 27/02/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant- State under Section 378(1)(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the judgement and order of acquittal passed by the learned Special Judge, Fast Track Court No. 4, Bharuch (hereinafter referred to as "the learned Trial Court") in Special (ATRO) Case No. 6 of 2005 on 18.03.2006, whereby, the learned Trial Court has given the benefit of doubts acquitted the respondents for the offence punishable under Sections 325 and 114 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereafter referred to as "IPC" for short) and Section 3(1)(10) of the Scheduled Tribes and Scheduled Page 1 of 19 Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Thu Feb 27 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Feb 27 22:53:42 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1599/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/02/2025 undefined Castes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereafter referred to as "the Atrocities Act" for short) 1.1] The respondents are hereinafter referred to as "the accused" as they stood in the original case for the sake of convenience, clarity and brevity.
2. The brief facts that emerge from the record of the case are as under:
2.1 On 06-05-2004, the complainant - Gemabhai Mangadbhai Vasava, had gone to purchase fish on his cycle at around 11:00 am and while he was returning at 06:00 pm, he was cutting the branches of trees for his goats in the outskirts of village Sarbhan and at that time, four watchmen came and asked him why he was cutting the branches and all four of them, assaulted him with sticks on his legs. That they lifted and took him and left him at the bus stand of Sarbhan village. Rajendrabhai Ambalal Patel who was known to him, took him to a private hospital at Sarbhan Village for treatment. That he does not know who those persons were and as his injuries were serious, he was referred to SSG Hosptial for further treatment. The complainant filed the complaint at Raopura Police Station, Vadodara City, under Sections 325, 114 of the IPC and Section 3(1)(10) of the Scheduled Casts and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Page 2 of 19 Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Thu Feb 27 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Feb 27 22:53:42 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1599/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/02/2025 undefined Atrocities), Act, 1881, Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act, which was registered at I-C.R.No. 36 of 2004.
2.2] The Investigating Officer recorded the statements of the connected witnesses and collected the necessary documents and after completion of investigation the police filed the chargesheet against the accused before the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Amod and as the said offences against the accused were exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the case was committed to the Sessions Court, Bharuch as per the provisions of Section 209 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the case was registered Special (ATRO) Case No. 6 of 2005.
2.3] 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 and a charge at Exh. 3 was framed against the accused and the statements of the accused were recorded at Exhs. 4 to 7, wherein, the accused denied all the contents of the charge and the entire evidence of the prosecution was taken on record. 2.4] The prosecution produced twenty oral evidences and twelve documentary evidences to bring home the charge against the accused and Page 3 of 19 Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Thu Feb 27 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Feb 27 22:53:42 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1599/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/02/2025 undefined after the learned Additional Public Prosecutor filed the closing pursis, the further statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 were recorded, wherein, the accused denied all the evidence of the prosecution on record. The accused refused to step into the witness box or examine witnesses on their behalf and stated that a false case has been filed against them. After the arguments of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and the learned advocate for the accused were heard, the learned trial Court by the impugned judgment and order was pleased to acquit all the accused from all the charges leveled against them .
3. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said judgement and order of acquittal, the appellant - State has filed the present appeal mainly stating that the impugned judgement and order of acquittal passed by the learned Trial Court is contrary to law and evidence on record and the learned Trial Court has not appreciated the fact that all the witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution and during cross-examination, nothing adverse has been elicited in favour of the respondent. The case has been proved beyond reasonable doubts and the prosecution has successfully established the case against the respondent and the judgement and order of acquittal is unwarranted, illegal and without any basis in the eyes of law and the reasons stated while acquitting the Page 4 of 19 Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Thu Feb 27 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Feb 27 22:53:42 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1599/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/02/2025 undefined respondent are improper, perverse and bad in law. Hence the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Trial Court deserves to be quashed and set aside.
4. Heard learned APP Mr. Bhargav Pandya, for the appellant State.
Though served the respondents, none has appeared either in person or through an advocate. Perused the impugned judgement and order of acquittal and have reappreciated the entire evidence of the prosecution on record of the case.
5. Learned APP Mr Bhargav Pandya has taken this Court through the entire evidence of the prosecution on record of the case and submitted that the judgment and order of acquittal is contrary to law and evidence on record and the learned trial Court has not appreciated the direct and indirect evidence in the case. That the complainant has supported the case of the prosecution, which is corroborated by the deposition of the medical officer and the witnesses have identified the accused before the learned trial Court. The prosecution has fully proved the case beyond reasonable doubts but the learned trial Court has relied on minor contradictions and has given undue weightage with regard to the place of incident. That the order passed by the learned trial Court is illegal, improper and perverse and is required to be quashed and set aside and the appeal of the appellant Page 5 of 19 Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Thu Feb 27 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Feb 27 22:53:42 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1599/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/02/2025 undefined must be allowed.
7. At the outset, before discussing the facts of the present case, it would be appropriate to refer to the observations of the Apex Court in acquittal appeals in the case of Chandrappa & Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka reported in 2007 (4) SCC 415, wherein, the Apex Court has observed as under:
Recently, in Kallu v. 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 trial court is based on evidence and the view taken is reasonable and plausible. It will not reverse the decision of the 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 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 phraseologies are more in the nature of 'flourishes of language' to emphasize the reluctance of an appellate Court to interfere with Page 6 of 19 Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Thu Feb 27 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Feb 27 22:53:42 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1599/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/02/2025 undefined 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 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 trial court..
8. The law with regard to acquittal appeals is well crystallized and in acquittal appeals, there is a presumption of innocence in favour of the accused and it has finally culminated when a case ends in an acquittal. The learned Trial Court has appreciated all the evidence and when the learned Trial Court has come to a conclusion that the prosecution has not proved the case beyond reasonable doubts, the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused gets strengthened. That there is no inhibition to re appreciate the evidence by the Appellate Court but if after re- appreciation, the view taken by the learned Trial Court was a possible view, there is no reason for the Appellate Court to interfere in the same.
9. In light of the above settled principles of law, the evidence on record of the case is appreciated and the prosecution has examined Prosecution Witness No. 1 Ravjibhai Lavkhadbhai at Exh. 14 and Page 7 of 19 Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Thu Feb 27 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Feb 27 22:53:42 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1599/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/02/2025 undefined Prosecution Witness No. 2 Bhupendrabhai Chhaganbhai Patel at Exh. 16. Both the witnesses are the panch-witnesses of the arrest panchnama by which the accused Nos. 1 to 3 were arrested. Both the witnesses have stated that they have merely affixed their signatures on the ready panchnama on 10-05-2004 at Amod Cross Roads while they were going on a motorcycle and they have not gone with the police to any place of incident. That, no persons have voluntarily produced any weapons in their presence. The witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution and have been declared hostile and during cross-examination by the learned APP, nothing to support the case of the prosecution have come on record.
9.1 The prosecution has examined Prosecution Witness No. 3 Dr. Suketu S. Dave at Exh.17 and the witness is the Orthopedic Surgeon at Bharuch Hospital. The witness has stated that on 02-06-2004, Gemabhai Mangabhai Vasava was brought to his hospital with history of assault by opposite party.The patient had taken primary treatment at SSG hospital, Vadodara and had come for further treatment. On examination, the following injuries were found on his body (i) fracture of left humerous bone treated at Vadodara, (ii) open wound with fracture of tribia / fobula on the right leg (iii) fracture of upper 1/4 tibia and fobula on the left side. The witness has produced the injury certificate of the complainant at Exh.
Page 8 of 19 Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Thu Feb 27 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Feb 27 22:53:42 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1599/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/02/2025 undefined
18 and has stated that the injuries could be sustained with a hard and blunt object.
8.3 The prosecution has examined Prosecution Witness No. 4 Bhupendrabhai Chaturbhai at Exh.19 and the witness is the panch witness of the panchnama produced at Exh.50. The witness has not supported the case of the prosecution and has been declared hostile. During the lengthy cross examination by the learend Additional Public Prosecutor nothing to support the case of the prosecution have come on record. 8.4 The prosecution has examined Prosecution Witness No. 5 Gemabhai Mangalbhai Vasava at Exh.22 and the witness is the complainant who has stated that four watchmen had beat him on legs with sticks and had abused him with caste-slurs and had thrown him at the Sarbhan Bus-Station. That he was admitted to Sayaji Hospital and he was operated upon and had thereafter gone to Bharuch Hospital for further treatment. The complainant has indentified the accused before the Court and has produced the complaint at Exh. 23.
During the cross examination by the learned advocate for the accused, the witness has stated that he did not take any instrument or any weapon with him when he went to cut the branches. The road from Dhamnat to Palej is a pakka road and many persons come to this place to take branches for their goats. The incident did not occur near the field of Page 9 of 19 Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Thu Feb 27 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Feb 27 22:53:42 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1599/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/02/2025 undefined Bhupendrabhai and the shrubs that is given to goats are with thrones which are generally cut with a long bamboo with a shart weapon tied at the end. That he had borrowed a sickle from some persons to cut the branches and he had climbed on the tree and was cutting the branches. When the accused came, he had the sickle with him , which fell down when they assaulted him. That he shouted but no one came from and he did not tell his son anything about the incident. That he did not know the names of the accused at the time of the incidnet and he did not know which village they were from. That he was not called by the Police for any test identification parade and in the complaint, he has not described the persons who had assaulted him.
8.5 The prosecution has examined Prosecution Witness No. 6 Hirlal Shamjibhai at Exh.24 and the witness has produced the caste certificate of the accused at Exh. 25. During the cross examination by the learned advocate for the accused, the witness has stated that complainant did not file the application for the caste certificate and besides the school leaving certificate and affidavit, no other documents had been collected. That generally the school leaving certificate and affidavit is required for a caste certificate but the complainant is not educated and he did not demand for any documents. That merely on the basis of the application, Page 10 of 19 Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Thu Feb 27 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Feb 27 22:53:42 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1599/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/02/2025 undefined the caste certificate was issued and he does not know who had prepared the certificate.
8.6 The prosecution has examined Prosecution Witness No. 7 Maheshbhai Ishwarbhai at Exh.31 and the witness has stated that on 06- 05-2004, he was at the outskirts of the village and he heard one person crying and on asking he was told that the village people had assaulted him. That he took him to the hospital at Sarbhan and from there, the doctor had referred him for further treatment to SSG hospital, Vadodara. That he took the inujured to SSG Hospital, Vadodara and the injured had sustained injury on his leg but did not tell him who had assaulted him.
During the cross examination by the learned advocate for the accused, the witness has stated that he had seen the injured on the outskirts of the village and the place is a thickly populated area. That he did not know that who was the injured person and when he was asked, he had stated that the village people had assaulted him. 8.7 The prosecution has examined Prosecution Witness No. 8 Rajendrabhai Ambalal Patel at Exh.32 and the witness had taken the injuried to the hosptial and he has stated that on 06-05-2004, when he was coming to Sarbhan village, he saw the injured lying on the cross roads. That, no one was present and he does not know, who had assaulted the injured and as the injured wanted to hospital, he and Mahesbhai had taken Page 11 of 19 Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Thu Feb 27 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Feb 27 22:53:42 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1599/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/02/2025 undefined him to Sarbhan hospital and from there to the hospital at Vadodara. The witness has not supported the case of the prosecution and has been declared hostile and during the cross examination by the learend APP, nothing to support the case of the prosecution, has come on record.
During the cross-examination by the learned advocate for the accused, the witness has stated that the wife and son Sanjay of the injured had come to village Sarbhan and the injured had stated that he had a verbal altercation in the outskirts of Dhamnat village but he did not name the persons who had assaulted him. That no police man had come while they were with the injured at Sarbhan village and at Vadodara. 8.8 The prosecution has examined Prosecution Witness No. 9 Sanjaybhai Gemabhai Vasava at Exh.33 and the witness is the son of the injured and he has stated that on 06-05-2004, his father had gone to purchase fish and as he did not get fish, he went to cut the branches for the goats. That, Maheshbhai and Rajendrabhai told him that his father was beaten up by four watchmen and he went to look his father, but he found the cycle of his father in the outskrits of village Khodva. That on the road , he met one Bharwad who told him that, one person of Dhamnat village had beaten his father and taken him on his horse. That he came back home and went to the hospital and from there he was taken to SSG Page 12 of 19 Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Thu Feb 27 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Feb 27 22:53:42 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1599/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/02/2025 undefined Hospital at Vadodara where he was treated for twenty seven days. That his father had told him that the persons had hurled caste-slurs at him.
During the cross examination by the learned advocate for the accused, the witness has stated that when he went to the hospital, the ambulance was ready and in his statement before the police, the witness has stated that some Sindhis had assaulted his father. 8.9 The prosecution has examined Prosecution Witness No. 10 Dharmisthaben Gemabhai Vasava at Exh. 34 and the witness is the wife of the complainant and she has supported the case of the prosecution and has stated that her husband was assaulted by the accused. During the cross examination by the learned advocate for the accused, the witness has stated that her husband was unconcious till he was taken to Vadodara and had regained consciousness on the third day. That she has no personal knowledge of the incident and they do not have any agricultural land in the outskirts of Sarbhan and Dhamnat villages. 8.10 The prosecution has examined Prosecution Witness No. 11 Gordhanbhai Parshootambhai Makwana at Exh. 36 and the Prosecution Witness No. 12 Pravinbhai Shanubhai Rana at Exh. 38. Both the witnessess are the panch-witnesses of the arrest panchnama ofthe accused No. 4 produced at Exh. 37. Both the witnesses have stated that the police had asked him to affix him signatures on the ready panchnama and no Page 13 of 19 Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Thu Feb 27 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Feb 27 22:53:42 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1599/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/02/2025 undefined persons had been arrested in their presence and no weapons had been seized from any persons during any panchnama. The witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution and have been declared hostile and have been cross examined by the learned APP but nothing to support the case of the prosecution have come on record.
8.11 The prosecution has examined Prosecution Witness No. 13 Bhagwansinh Dungarsinh, Head Constable Buckle No. 1604, Raopura Police Station at Exh.39 and is the witness has recorded the information from SSG hospital and informed the ASI Shri Narendrasinh Chhatrasinh about the incident.
8.12 The prosecution has examined Prosecution Witness No. 14 Pooonamchand Dhanabhai Baranda at Exh. 40 and the witness is the initial Investigating Officer, who has narrated in detail all the procedure that was undertaken by him.
8.13 The prosecution has examined Prosecution Witness No. 15 Dr. Atulbhai B. Gupta at Exh. 44 and the witness is the Medical Officer, who was working at SSG Hospital at Vadodara on 07-05-2004. The witness has stated that the complainant Gemabhai Mangabhai Vasava was brought for treatment on 07-05-2004 at 12:55 am with alleged history of assault with Dhariya by the watchmen at around 06:00pm on 06-05-2004.
Page 14 of 19 Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Thu Feb 27 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Feb 27 22:53:42 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1599/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/02/2025 undefined
The injured has suffered left and right tibia fracture and fracture on the right humerous and the medical certificate has been produced at Exh.45. 8.14 The prosecution has examined Prosecution Witness No. 16 Narendrasinh Chhtatrasinh, ASI Raopura Police Station, at Exh. 46 and the witness is the PSO, who has registered the complaint of the complainant.
8.15 The prosecution has examined Prosecution Witness No. 17 Jaswantsinh Ratansinh, ASI Buckle No. 955, Amod Police Station at Exh. 47. The witness has stated that on 07-05-2004, he was at the Sarbhan Out Post when the offence at C.R.No.I-36 of 2004 under Sections 325 and 114 ofthe IPC and Section 135 of the Gujarat Police Act, was regsitered and had been sent to him for investigation and he had prepared the panchnama of the place of offence, recorded the statements of the connected witnesses and arrested all the accused. That he had collected the medical certicicates of the complainant and had handed over the further investigation to PSI C.B.Patel.
During the cross examination by the learned advocate for the accused, the witness has stated that the complainant had merely stated that the watchmen had assaulted him and at the Darbhan Beat, there are thirty villages and every village has a different watchman. That the Page 15 of 19 Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Thu Feb 27 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Feb 27 22:53:42 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1599/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/02/2025 undefined further statement of the complainant has been recorded and no test ientification parade was conducted during investigation. 8.16 The prosecution has examined Prosecution Witness No. 18 Dineshchandra Chandulal, Buckle No. 1279 at Exh.50, and the witness was working as PSO, Amod Police Station, and he had registered the offence , which was received from Raopura Police Station at Amod Police Station, C.R.No. I-36 of 2004.
8.17 The prosecution has examined Prosecution Witness No. 19 Chandravadan Bhailalbhai Patel at Exh. 51 and the witness was working as PSI, Amod Police Station and he has investigated the offence. The witness has stated that on recording the further statement of the complainant, under Section 3(1)(10) of the Atrocities Act, was made out and hence the further investigation was handed over to Dy.S.P. (SCST Cell ). That the wife of the complainant had filed a private case before Amod Court and the initial investigation was done by the Dy.S.P., Jambusar and thereafter, Dy.S.P. (SCST Cell), Bharuch. 8.18 The prosecution has examined Prosecution Witness No. 20 Dilipbhai Buckle No. 2666, Head Constable, Raopura Police Station, at Exh. 56 and the witness has recorded the complaint of the complainant under Sections 325 and 114 ofthe IPC and Section 135 of the Gujarat Police Act. The witness has stated that the information was received from Page 16 of 19 Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Thu Feb 27 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Feb 27 22:53:42 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1599/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/02/2025 undefined hospital duty, Head Constable Bhagwanbhai Dungarbhai and when the complaint of the complainant - Gemabhai was taken, his son was present. That the complainant did not identify any of the persons who had assaulted him.
9. On minute appreciation of the entire evidence of the prosecution, as per the case of the prosecution, the complainant was assaulted in the outskirts of village Dhamnat by some unknown persons but the complainant has not named the persons who had assaulted him. There is nothing on record to show that the accused were the same persons who had assaulted the complainant and there is nothing on record to conclude, as to how the identity of the accused came to be known the complainant. Admittedly, there are no eye-witnesses to the incident and even the place of offence is not conclusive as to whether it had occurred in the outskirts of Sarbhan Village or in the outskirts of Dhamnat village. Prosecution Witness No. 8 Rajendrabhai Ambalal Patel is the witness, who had found the complainant injured and had taken him to the hospital at Sarbhan and thereafter to the SSG hospital at Vadodara but Prosecution Witness No. 10 Dharmistha Gemabhai Vasava, the wife of the complainant has stated that the complainant was unconscious for three days and he regained consciousness after three days. During investigation, no test identification parade was conducted and the evidence of the complainant does not seem Page 17 of 19 Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Thu Feb 27 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Feb 27 22:53:42 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1599/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/02/2025 undefined to inspire confidence and there is no iota of evidence as to whether the accused had assaulted the complainant. The learned Trial Court has discussed all the oral as well as documentary evidences in detail and has concluded that the contradictory evidence of the complainant and the witnesses cannot be relied upon and it cannot be said that the prosecution has proved his case beyond reasonable doubts. Moreover, the view taken by the learned Trial Court in acquitting the accused is fairly possible and there is no illegality and perversity in the impugned judgment and order of acquittal.
10. In view of the settled position of law in the decisions of Chandrappa (supra), 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 extending benefit of doubt and acquitting the accused of the charges levelled against him. The findings recorded by the learned Trial Court are absolutely just 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 Page 18 of 19 Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Thu Feb 27 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Feb 27 22:53:42 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1599/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/02/2025 undefined of extending benefit of doubt and 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.
11. The impugned judgement and order of acquittal passed by the learned Special Judge, Fast Track Court No. 4, Bharuch (hereinafter referred to as "the learned Trial Court") in Special (ATRO) Case No. 6 of 2005 , is hereby confirmed.
12. Bail bond stands cancelled. Record and proceedings be sent back to the concerned Trial Court forthwith.
Sd/-
(S. V. PINTO,J) VVM Page 19 of 19 Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Thu Feb 27 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Feb 27 22:53:42 IST 2025