Sureshbhai Dalabhai Rohit vs State Of Gujarat
2021 Latest Caselaw 689 Guj

         R/CR.A/1837/2019                                   ORDER




          IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                   R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1837 of 2019

==========================================================
                        SURESHBHAI DALABHAI ROHIT
                                  Versus
                            STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR GAJENDRA P BAGHEL(2968) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 2
MS CM SHAH, APP for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================

 CORAM: HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE BELA M. TRIVEDI
                    Date : 19/01/20 21
                     ORAL ORDER

1. The appeal is filed by the appellant original­complainant under Section 372 of the Cr.P.C., challenging the judgment and order dated 29.06.2019 passed by the 3rd Additional Sessions Judge at Petlad (hereinafter referred to as "the Sessions Court") in Special Atrocity Case No. 06 of 2018 whereby the Sessions Court has acquitted the respondent No. 2­original accused from the charges levelled against him under Sections 504, 506(1) and 352 of IPC and Sections 3(1)(10) of the Scheduled Castes and Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as "the said Act").

2. The appellant­complainant had lodged a complaint against the respondent No. 2 accused in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Petlad on 01.04.2015 alleging inter alia that he was doing the small labour work and the accused was the Principal of B.J.D. Patel High School, Village: Simarda. The complainant needed a character certificate for the post of peon in Bank of Baroda and therefore he had approached the accused on 27.12.2014. The complainant had given an application to the accused for issuing the said certificate and till the time the accused was reading the application, he (complainant)

R/CR.A/1837/2019 ORDER

was sitting on the sofa set lying in the room. The accused thereafter returned the application and asked him as to with whose permission he was sitting on the sofa as it was not kept for the lower caste people. The complainant therefore had returned from the office of the accused. Thereafter on 29.12.2014, the complainant had made an application under the RTI Act, however the accused had told him that the said Act was not applicable to them. On the same day, after the school hours when the accused was passing through the road near the house of the complainant, the accused abused the complainant and uttered derogatory and humiliating words pertaining to his caste and hence the complaint was filed. The said complaint was registered as the Inquiry Case No. 8 of 2018 in the Court of the JMFC Petlad. The said case thereafter was committed to the Sessions Court for trial which was registered as Special Atrocity Case No. 41 of 2017 (new case No. 6 of 2018). The Sessions Court framed the charge against the respondent­accused for the alleged offence and after appreciating the evidence on record acquitted the respondent­accused vide the impugned judgment and order.

3. Learned Advocate Mr. Baghel appearing for the appellant vehemently submitted that the Sessions Court had mis­appreciated the evidence on record and acquitted the respondent­accused though there was sufficient evidence to show that the respondent­accused had abused and humiliated the complainant using filthy language by uttering derogatory words about his caste. According to Mr. Baghel, the minor contradictions in the depositions of the witnesses have been given unnecessary importance for acquitting the accused.

4. At the outset it may be noted that as per the settled legal position, the scope of appeal against the judgment of the acquittal is very narrow and when two views are possible the Appellate Court

R/CR.A/1837/2019 ORDER

normally should not disturb the findings of acquittal recorded by the Sessions Court. Beneficial reference to the decision of the Supreme Court in case of State of Rajasthan versus Ram Nivas reported in (2010) 15 SCC 463 be made in this regard wherein it has been held as under:

"6. This Court has held in Kalyan v. State of U.P. reported in (2001) 9 SCC 632:

"8. The settled position of law on the powers to be exercised by the High Court in an appeal against an order of acquittal is that though the High court has full powers to review the evidence upon which an order of acquittal is passed, it is equally well settled that the presumption of innocence of the accused persons, as envisaged under the Criminal jurisprudence prevalent in our country is further reinforced by his acquittal by the trial court. Normally the views of the trial court, as to the credibility of the witnesses, must be given proper weight and consideration because the trial Court is supposed to have watch the demeanor and conduct of the witnesses and is in a better position to appreciate their testimony. The High Court should be slow in disturbing a finding of fact arrived at by the trial court. In Kali Ram. v. state of H.P., this Court observed that the golden thread which runs through the web of administration of justice in a criminal case is that if two views are possible on the evidence adduced in the case, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other to his innocence, the view which is favourable to the accused should be adopted.""

5. In Arulvelu and another versus State reported in (2009) 10 Supreme Court Cases 206 the Supreme Court after discussing the earlier judgments, observed in para No. 36 as under:

"36. Careful scrutiny of all these judgments lead to the definite conclusion that the appellate court should be very slow in setting aside a judgment of acquittal particularly in a case where two views are possible. The trial court judgment can not be set aside because the appellate court's view is more probable. The appellate court would not be justified in setting aside the trial court judgment unless it arrives at a clear finding on marshaling the entire evidence on record that the judgment of

R/CR.A/1837/2019 ORDER

the trial court is either perverse or wholly unsustainable in law."

6. So far as the facts of the present case are concerned, the Sessions Court has acquitted the respondent­accused on the ground that there were number of contradictions in the evidence of the witnesses examined by the prosecution and on the ground that the prosecution had not examined any independent witnesses to support the allegations of the complainant, as all the witnesses examined by the prosecution belonged to the community of the complainant and that the prosecution has failed to prove the ingredients of the alleged offences under the said Act. The Sessions Court has also taken into consideration the undisputed fact that the complainant had filed five other cases under the said Act against different persons. The appellant­complainant in his evidence had also admitted that if anybody filed the complaint under the Atrocity Act, he would get financial assistance of Rs. 75,000/­ per case from the Social Welfare Department. The appellant had also failed to prove the ingredients of Section 352 of IPC charged against the respondent­accused. Thus considering the evidence adduced by the prosecution, the Sessions Court has acquitted the respondent­accused by holding the that prosecution had failed to prove the charges leveled against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. This Court does not find any illegality or infirmity in the said findings recorded by the Sessions Court.

7. In that view of the matter, the appeal being devoid of merits, is dismissed in limine.

(BELA M. TRIVEDI, J) SINDHU NAIR