Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Nagabhai Harjibhai Patel on 16 January, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1650/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/01/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1650 of 2008
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE S.V. PINTO
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
NO
==========================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
NAGABHAI HARJIBHAI PATEL & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS. JIRGA JHAVERI, APP for the Appellant(s) No. 1
BAILABLE WARRANT SERVED for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1
MR MAHESH P PATEL(3381) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1
MR N P CHAUDHARY(3980) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1
UNSERVED EXPIRED (N) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE S.V. PINTO
Date : 16/01/2025
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 Additional Sessions Judge, 3rd Fast Track Court, Deesa Camp at Deodar (hereinafter referred to as "the learned Trial Court") in Special Case No. 155 of 2007 on 12/03/2008, whereby, the learned Trial Court has acquitted the respondent for the offence punishable Page 1 of 21 Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Mon Jan 20 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jan 20 21:33:15 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1650/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/01/2025 undefined under Sections 323, 504 and 506(2) of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereafter referred to as "IPC" for short) and Section 3(1)(10) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
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 The complainant - Nagjibhai Dharmabhai Harijan and his wife Karmaben Nagjibhai Harijan had gone to the house of the accused on 16/07/2007 at 07:00 am to take the seeds that were being distributed by the accused and when they met the accused and told them that the seeds were received from the Government and to give them the same, the accused told them that he had sold the seeds and there were no more seeds. The complainant, thereafter, asked the accused the names of the persons to whom were the seeds were sold, and at that time, the accused got angry and abused both of them with caste slurs and told them that he did not want to give him the seeds and took a stick and hit the stick on the Page 2 of 21 Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Mon Jan 20 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jan 20 21:33:15 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1650/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/01/2025 undefined right side of the face of the complainant and as his wife intervened to save him, the accused hit her on the left hand elbow and as she shouted, Mansungbhai Jethabhai Thakore came there and saved them from further beating. The complainant filed the complaint before the Tharad Police Station under Section 323, 504 and 506(2) of the IPC and Section 3(1)(10) of the Atrocities Act, which was registered being II-C.R.No. 3114 of 2008.
2.2 The Investigating Officer recorded the statements of the connected witnesses, drew the necessary panchnamas, collected the necessary documents including the medical certificate and a chargesheet came to be filed before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Tharad and as the said offences against the accused were exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the case was committed to the Sessions Court, Veraval as per the provisions of Section 209 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the case was registered Special Case No. 155 of 2007.
2.3 The accused was 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 Page 3 of 21 Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Mon Jan 20 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jan 20 21:33:15 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1650/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/01/2025 undefined charge at Exh. 4 was framed against the accused and the statements of the accused was recorded at Exh. 5, 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 the following evidence to bring home the charge against the accused.
ORAL EVIDENCES Sr. P.W. Particulars Exh.
No. Nos 1. 1. Chhaganbhai Karmasibhai Thakore 8 2 2. Hemjibhai Virdasbhai Pate 10 3. 3. Jivrajbhai Vaghabhai Patel 11 4. 4. Kanjibhai Gagabhai Patel 13 5. 5. Dr. Pankaj Laxminarayan Gupta 14 6. 6. Nagjibhai Dharmabhai 20 7. 7. Karmaben Nagjibhai 22 8. 8. Mansungbhai Jethaji Thakore 25 9. 9. Bhikhabhai Bhagvandas Patel 26 10 10. Virendrasinh Deepsinh 28 Page 4 of 21 Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Mon Jan 20 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jan 20 21:33:15 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1650/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/01/2025 undefined DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES Sr. Particulars Exh. No. 1. Panchnama of place of offence 09 2. Arrest panchanama 12 3. Yadi 15 4. Injury certificate 16 5. Injury certificate 17 6. Complaint 21 7. Register 24 8. Caste Certificate 26 9. Station Diary 29 10 Attendance register 30 11 Special Report 31
2.5 The prosecution has examined ten witnesses and produced eleven documentary evidences in support of their case and after the closing pursis was filed by the learned APP at Exh. 32, the further statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was recorded wherein the accused denied all the allegations and stated that a false case has been filed against him due to the revenge regarding the elections. The accused refused to step into the witness box and lead evidence and Page 5 of 21 Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Mon Jan 20 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jan 20 21:33:15 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1650/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/01/2025 undefined refused to examine any witness on his behalf and 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 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 is contrary to law and principles of justice and the judgment and order is based on inferences not warranted by facts of the case and also on the presumption not permitted by law. That the prosecution has produced the evidence of ten witnesses and eleven documentary evidences and has proved the case beyond reasonable doubts and the complainant and his wife who are the independent witnesses have fully supported the case of the prosecution. That the eye witness Mansunghbhai Jethaji Thakore has also supported the case of the prosecution and he is an independent witness but the learned trial Court has not relied upon his evidence. Moreover, the learned trial Court has disbelieved the evidence of the complainant and his wife stating that they are relatives but has not Page 6 of 21 Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Mon Jan 20 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jan 20 21:33:15 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1650/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/01/2025 undefined considered the evidence of the eye-witness and even though there is medical evidence to corroborate the say of the complainant, the learned trial Court has given undue importance to minor contradictions and omissions and has committed a grave error in acquitting the respondent. That the impugned judgment and order of acquittal is improper perverse, bad in law and is required to be quashed and set aside.
4. Heard learned APP Ms. Jirga Jhaveri for the appellant - State and learned advocate Mr. N.P.Chaudhary for the respondent. 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 Ms. Jirga Jhaveri appearing for the appellant-State has taken this Court through the entire evidence of the prosecution and has vehemently argued that the learned trial Court has not considered the evidence of both the eye-witnesses i.e. the complainant and his wife, who are consistent in their statements and has also not considered that the independent witness has also supported the case of the prosecution. That, the prosecution has Page 7 of 21 Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Mon Jan 20 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jan 20 21:33:15 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1650/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/01/2025 undefined proved that the accused uttered the caste slurs and while the complainant and his wife had gone to take the seeds, the accused has abused them and has refused to give them the seeds and has also assaulted them with the sticks and hence as the prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable doubts, the appeal must be allowed and the impugned judgment and order of acquittal must be quashed and set aside.
6. Learned advocate Mr. N.P.Chaudhary for the respondent has submitted that the learned trial Court has appreciated all the evidence in correct perspective and there is no iota of evidence that the accused had received the seeds from the government and it was the accused, who had to distribute the seeds to the farmers. The Investigating Officer has admitted that he has not conducted any investigation in this regard and it is a false case filed against the accused as the complainant wanted to take revenge regarding the election that had taken place. As per the case of the prosecution, the incident had occurred on 16/07/2007 at 07:00 am, but the complainant and his wife had gone to the hospital after more than twelve hours and as per the medical certificates produced at Exh. 16 and 17 respectively, the complainant and his wife have not Page 8 of 21 Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Mon Jan 20 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jan 20 21:33:15 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1650/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/01/2025 undefined named the accused and the person, who had assaulted them, before the Medical Officer. Moreover, the Medical Officer has stated that the injury could be sustained if a person falls down and it appears that merely with the intention of taking revenge, the complainant has filed the false case. The learned trial Court has appreciated all the evidence properly and no interference is required and the learned advocate for the respondent has urged this Court to reject the appeal of the appellant.
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 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) Page 9 of 21 Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Mon Jan 20 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jan 20 21:33:15 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1650/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/01/2025 undefined 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 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.
7.1 The Apex Court in yet another recent decision in case of Sri Dattatraya Vs. Sharanappa arising out of Criminal Appeal No. 3257 of 2024 (@ SLP (Crl.) No. 13179 of 2023) observed as under:
31. The instant case pertains to challenge against concurrent findings of fact favouring the acquittal of the respondent, it would be cogent to delve into an analysis of the principles underlining the exercise of power to adjudicate a challenge against acquittal bolstered by concurrent findings. The following Page 10 of 21 Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Mon Jan 20 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jan 20 21:33:15 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1650/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/01/2025 undefined broad principles can be culled out after a comprehensive analysis of judicial pronouncements:
i) Criminal jurisprudence emphasizes on the fundamental essence of liberty and presumption of innocence unless proven guilty. This presumption gets emboldened by virtue of concurrent findings of acquittal. Therefore, this court must be extra cautious while dealing with a challenge against acquittal as the said presumption gets reinforced by virtue of a well-reasoned favourable outcome. Consequently, the onus on the prosecution side becomes more burdensome pursuant to the said double presumption.
ii) In case of concurrent findings of acquittal, this Court would ordinarily not interfere with such view considering the principle of liberty enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India 1950, unless perversity is blatantly forthcoming and there are compelling reasons.
iii) Where two views are possible, then this Court would not ordinarily interfere and reverse the concurrent findings of acquittal. However, where the situation is such that the only conclusion which could be arrived at from a comprehensive appraisal of evidence, shows that there has been a grave miscarriage of justice, then, notwithstanding such concurrent view, this Court would not restrict itself to adopt an oppugnant view. [Vide State of Uttar Pradesh v. Dan Singh]
iv) To adjudge whether the concurrent findings of acquittal are 'perverse' it is to be seen whether there has been failure of justice. This Court in Babu v.
State of Kerala clarified the ambit of the term 'perversity' as "if the findings have been arrived at by ignoring or excluding relevant material or by taking into consideration irrelevant/admissible material. The finding may also be said to be perverse if it is 'against the weight of evidence', or if the finding so outrageously defies logic as to suffer from the vice of irrationality."
v) In situations of concurrent findings favoring accused, interference is required where the trial court adopted an incorrect approach in framing of an issue of fact and the appellate court whilst affirming the view of the trial court, lacked in appreciating the evidence produced by the accused in rebutting a legal presumption. [Vide Rajesh Jain v. Ajay Singh]
vi) Furthermore, such interference is necessitated to safeguard interests of justice when the acquittal is based on some irrelevant grounds or fallacies in re-appreciation of any fundamental evidentiary material or a manifest error of law or in cases of non-adherence to the principles of natural justice or the decision is manifestly unjust or where an acquittal which is fundamentally based on an exaggerated adherence to the principle of granting benefit of doubt to the accused, is liable to be set aside. Say in cases where the court Page 11 of 21 Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Mon Jan 20 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jan 20 21:33:15 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1650/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/01/2025 undefined severed the connection between accused and criminality committed by him upon a cursory examination of evidences. [Vide State of Punjab v. Gurpreet Singh and Others and Rajesh Prasad v. State of Bihar.]
8. The law with regard to acquittal appeals is well crystallized and in acquittal appeals, there is presumption of innocence in favour of the accused and it has finally culminated when a case ends in an acquittal. That 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 on the above settled principles on law considering the evidence on the prosecution, the prosecution has examined Prosecution Witness No. 1 Chhagansinh Karamsinh Thakore at Exh. 8 and Prosecution Witness No. 2 Hemjibhai Virdasbhai Patel at Exh. 10. Both the witnesses are the panch witnesses of the panchnama of place of offence, which is produced at Exh.9 and Page 12 of 21 Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Mon Jan 20 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jan 20 21:33:15 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1650/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/01/2025 undefined both the witnesses have stated that they were called by the Police and asked to affix their signatures on a panchnama, which was already prepared and they had affixed their signatures on the panchnama, which is produced at Exh.9. The witness has stated that they have not gone to the place of incident with police and as they have not supported the case of the prosecution, they have been declared hostile and have been cross examined by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor. During the cross examination, nothing has come on record to support the case of the prosecution. 9.1 The prosecution has examined Prosecution Witness No. 3 Jivrajbhai Vaghabhai Patel at Exh. 11 and Prosecution Witness No. 4 Kanjibhai Gagabhai Patel at Exh.13. Both the witnesses are the panch witnesses of the panchnama produced at Exh. 12, which is the panchnama, by which the the accused had voluntarily given the stick that was used at the time of the incident and the stick was seized in the presense of the panch witnesses but both the witnesses have merely stated that the police had called them and had asked them to affix their signatures on the panchnama, which is at Exh. 12. The witnesses have stated that no stick was seized from any person in their presence and both the panch-witnesses have declared hostile and being cross-examined by the learned Page 13 of 21 Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Mon Jan 20 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jan 20 21:33:15 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1650/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/01/2025 undefined Additional Public Prosecutor but nothing to support the case of the prosecution has come on record.
9.2 The prosecution has examined Prosecution Witness No. 5 Dr. Pankaj Laxminarayan Gupta at Exh. 14 and the witness is the Medical Officer, who was on duty at Community Health Centre, Tharad on 16/70/2007. The witness has stated that while he was on duty at 6:40 pm, Karmaben Nagjibhai had come with a Yadi from PSO for treatment and she had stated a history of assault at 07:00 pm. On examination, she had a swelling on left lateral posterior aspect of upper forearm and the injury caused by a hard and blunt substance. The injury was a simple injury and the witness has produced the medical certificate at Exh. 16. The witness has stated that on the same day Nagjibhai Dharmabhai Harijan was also examined and he had given history of assault by stick at 07:00 pm and he had abrasion on right cheek below the eye, which was 0.5 cm-0.5 cm. The injury was simple injury and the medical certificate is produced at Exh. 17. During the cross-examination by the learned advocate for the accused, the witness has stated that both the persons would sustain the injury by a fall. Page 14 of 21 Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Mon Jan 20 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jan 20 21:33:15 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1650/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/01/2025 undefined 9.3 The prosecution has examined Prosecution Witness No. 6 Nagjibhai Dharmabhai at Exh. 20 and the witness is the complainant who has deposed as per the complaint. The witness has stated that on 16/07/2007, he had gone with his wife to the house of the accused to take seeds and at that time, the accused told them that he had sold the seeds. The complainant asked him for the names of the person to whom the seeds were sold and that time, the accused got angry and took a stick and abused them with caste-slur and gave a push with the stick on the face of the complainant, who started bleeding and as his wife intervened she was beaten with a stick. That his wife shouted and she sustained the injury on the left elbow and Mansunghbhai Jethabhai Thakore rushed and saved them for further beating. That they went home and thereafter went to the Tharad Police Station in a truck and went to the Hospital for treatment. The complainant has produced the complaint at Exh. 21. During the cross-examination by the learned advocate for the accused, the witness has stated that accused was a Surpanch of the village from 2005-2007. That the complainant was the chairman of the Nyaya Samiti in the panchayat. The road infront of the house of the accused is a public road going towards the bus-stand and he has not stated in his Page 15 of 21 Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Mon Jan 20 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jan 20 21:33:15 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1650/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/01/2025 undefined complaint that the accused had told him that the seeds were over. That he had filed cases under the Atrocities Act against Devrajbhai Dhanabhai and Ravjibhai Ajabhai also.
9.4 The prosecution has examined Prosecution Witness No. 7 Karmaben Nagjibhai at Exh.22 and the witness is the wife of the complainant who was present along with the complainant on the date of incident as per the case of the prosecution. The witness has stated the same facts as narrated by the complainant and during the cross-examination by the learned advocate for the accused, she has stated that the seeds were received at the place of the Sarpanch two months prior to the incident and they had gone to the house of the Sarpanch to take the seeds. That in the statement recorded by the Investigating Officer, she has not stated that her husband had asked for the seeds and the Thakore Mohalla is situated in-front of the house of the Sarpanch.
9.5 The prosecution has examined Prosecution Witness No. 8 Mansungbhai Jethaji Thakore at Exh. 25 and the witness has stated that on the date of the incident, he was going to the village in the morning at 07:00 am and at that time, Karmaben Nagjibhai Harijan, was shouting and he went to save her and at that time he Page 16 of 21 Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Mon Jan 20 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jan 20 21:33:15 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1650/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/01/2025 undefined saw the accused giving a push with the stick on the face of the complainant and while the accused raised the stick to hit the complainant, the wife of the complainant was injured on the left hand. That he intervened and save them for further beating and at that time, the accused gave caste-slur and threatened to kill the complainant and he had asked the complainant the reason for the quarrel and the complainant had stated that he had asked the accused about the seeds and they had an altercation. During the cross-examination the witness has stated that on the date of the incident, he was going from his house to the village and in the statement before the Police, she has not stated that the accused and the complainant and his wife were quarreling about the seeds. That there was an election of the Sarpanch two months prior and he had not gone to take the seeds and he does know whether the Gram Sevak was the authority to distribute the seeds. 9.6 The prosecution has examined Prosecution Witness No. 9 Bhikhabhai Bhagwandas Patel at Exh. 26 and the witness is the Investigating Officer, who has deposed in detail about the procedure that was undertaken by him and during the investigation, the witness has stated that he has not taken statement of any person as to whether the Sarpanch is given the Page 17 of 21 Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Mon Jan 20 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jan 20 21:33:15 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1650/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/01/2025 undefined authority to distribute the seeds and he has not investigated as to how much seeds were given to the Sarpanch and how much he had distributed. During the investigation, the statements of neighbour surrounding the place of incident, have not been recorded and he had not seized the caste certificate of the accused. That during the investigation, the wife of the complainant has not stated that they were going to the house of the accused to get the seeds and the accused had met them at the gate of Thakore Vas and they had asked him for the seeds.
9.7 The prosecution has examined Prosecution Witness No. 10 Virendrasinh Deepsinh at Exh. 28 and the witness is the PSO, Tharad Police Station, who has registered the complaint of the complainant.
10. On minute re-appreciation of the evidence of the prosecution and the impugned judgment and order of acquittal, it appears that the learned trial Court has thoroughly appreciated all the evidence on record and has given due consideration to all material pieces of evidence. Admittedly, the incident has occurred on 16/07/2007 at 07:00 pm and the complainant and his wife were examined by the Prosecution Witness No. 5 Medical Officer Dr. Pankaj Page 18 of 21 Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Mon Jan 20 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jan 20 21:33:15 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1650/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/01/2025 undefined Laxminarayan Gupta at 06:41pm and 06:45pm respectively. There was a delay of almost 12 hours in going to the hospital and the delay has not been explained by the complainant or his wife and in medical certificate produced at Exh. 16 and Exh. 17, both the complainant and his wife have not named the accused as the person, who had assaulted them. The complainant and his wife had merely given the history of assault by stick by 07:00am and have not stated the place where they have assaulted and the person, by whom, they were assaulted. The injuries sustained by both the complainant and his wife are minor injuries and as per the evidence of the medical officer, the injuries could be sustained by a fall. The complainant has stated that after the incident, they had gone home and had thereafter, gone to the Police Station and there is no explanation regarding the delay and at what time they had left from their house to go to the Police Station and thereafter to the Hospital. As far as the evidence of the independent witness Mansungbhai Jethaji Thakore at Exh: 8, the witness does not seem to be reliable and his evidence does not conspire any confidence as there are number of contradictions in his evidence. It is also on record that the elections were held two months prior and it appears that there was some animosity regarding the election and the Page 19 of 21 Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Mon Jan 20 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jan 20 21:33:15 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1650/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/01/2025 undefined accused was a Sarpanch, the complaint has been filed. Moreover, the complainant has earlier filed cases under Atrocities Act against Devrajbhai Dhanabhai and Ravjibhai Ajabhai also. Moreover, there is no iota of evidence that the accused was in fact, the competent authority to receive the seeds from the government and distributed the same and it appears that the Investigating Officer has not investigated anything about the say of the complainant. There is no evidence as to whether the seeds were received by the accused, whether he had in fact distributed or sold the seeds and the quantity of the seeds that were distributed or sold and the learned trial Court has appreciated all the evidence and has come to the conclusion that the prosecution has not prove the case beyond reasonable doubts. Moreover, the learned trial Court has discussed the reasons for not believing the say of the complainant and has passed the impugned judgement and order.
11. In view of the settled position of law in the decisions of Chandrappa (Supra) and Sri Dattatraya (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 Page 20 of 21 Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Mon Jan 20 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jan 20 21:33:15 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1650/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/01/2025 undefined opinion that the learned Trial Court was completely justified in extending benefit of doubt and acquitting the accused of the charges leveled 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 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.
12. The impugned judgement and order of acquittal passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 3rd Fast Track Court, Deesa Camp at Deodar in Special Case No. 155 of 2007 on 12/03/2008, is hereby confirmed.
13. Bail bond stands cancelled. Record and proceedings be sent back to the concerned Trial Court forthwith.
Sd/-
(S. V. PINTO,J) VVM Page 21 of 21 Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Mon Jan 20 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jan 20 21:33:15 IST 2025