Sureshbhai Dalabhai Rohit vs State Of Gujarat
2021 Latest Caselaw 690 Guj

         R/CR.A/1831/2019                                        ORDER




          IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                   R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1831 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 : 19/01/2021

                               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. 13 of 2018 whereby the Sessions Court has acquitted the respondent No. 2­original accused from the charges levelled against him under Sections 504, 506(2) of IPC and Sections 3(1)(r)(s) and 3(2) and 5(a) of the Scheduled Castes and Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as "the said Act").

2. The present appellant­complainant had lodged a complaint against the respondent No. 2 accused on 16.03.2018 before the Petlad Town Police Station alleging inter alia that he was doing the work of cleaning the leather of animals and on 02.03.2018 at about 6 'o' clock in the evening when he was returning from his field, the accused Dineshbhai Somabhai Parmar met him near the under­bridge of State Bank of India, Simarda. The accused threatened him that he (the

R/CR.A/1831/2019 ORDER

complainant) should withdraw the complaint filed by him against the Principal Mahendrabhai Dahyabhai Patel, otherwise he will have to face serious consequences. The accused also told him that if he withdrew the said complaint, he would ask the principal to give him i.e. the complainant Rs. 5,00,000/­. However he (complainant) refused to do so and left for his house. Thereafter on 16.03.2018 at about 7:45 A.M., when he was going towards his leather industry center, the accused met him again near the cremation ground and asked him as to what he had decided about the withdrawal of the complaint and settlement of the matter. When the complainant said that he was not ready to make any settlement, the accused started abusing and humiliating him in filthy language derogatory to his caste being scheduled caste, at the public place. The said complaint was registered as II Cr. No. 3030 of 2018 at the Petlad Town Police Station for the offences punishable under Section 504, 506(2) of IPC and Sections 3(1)(r)(s) and 3(2), 5(a) of the Scheduled Castes and Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The investigating officer after completing the investigation had submitted the charge­sheet before the Sessions Court which was registered as Special Atrocity Case No. 19 of 2018. The Sessions Court after appreciating the evidence on record acquitted the respondent No. 2 accused from the charges leveled against him. Being aggrieved by the same the appellant­ complainant has preferred the present appeal.

3. Learned Advocate Mr. Baghel appearing for the appellant vehemently submitted that the Sessions Court had failed to appreciate the evidence in the right perspective and had acquitted the respondent­accused, though there was sufficient evidence on record to show that the respondent No. 2 had uttered humiliating words derogatory to the caste of the appellant­ complainant, in a public place and was therefore guilty of the charged offences. According to

R/CR.A/1831/2019 ORDER

him, the minor contradictions in the depositions of the witnesses were unnecessarily highlighted by the Sessions Court to acquit the accused. He also submitted that all the witnesses including the panch­witnesses had supported the case of the prosecution, however they were not believed by the Sessions Court on the ground that the witnesses belonged to the community of the complainant.

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 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

R/CR.A/1831/2019 ORDER

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

6. Keeping in mind the aforestated legal position, if the evidence of of the present case is appreciated, it appears that the Sessions Court has acquitted the respondent­accused as it had found number of contradictions in the evidences of the witnesses examined by the prosecution and on the ground that the prosecution had not examined any independent witnesses as all the witnesses examined by the prosecution belong to the community of the complainant. The Sessions Court has also taken into consideration the defence of the respondent­accused that the accused in the present case was a witness in the case registered against the Principal Mahendrabhai Dahyabhai Patel by the present appellant­complainant, and since the present accused had not supported the case of the complainant in his statement before the police in the other case, a false complaint was lodged by the present complainant against the present accused to pressurize him to give evidence against the said Principal­ Mahendrabhai Dahyabhai Patel in the case filed by the complainant against the said Mahendrabhai Dahyabhai Patel. The Sessions Court has also taken into consideration that the appellant­ complainant had filed other five complaints against the other persons under the said

R/CR.A/1831/2019 ORDER

Act. Thus, with regard to the evidence on record and the findings recorded by the Sessions Court, it appears that the appellant­ complainant is in the habit of filing complaints under the said Act against the persons who do not support him, misusing the process of law. The Court therefore does not find any substance in the present appeal.

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

(BELA M. TRIVEDI, J) SINDHU NAIR