Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Manjibhai Vastabhai Patel on 15 September, 2021
Bench: Ashokkumar C. Joshi
R/CR.A/1219/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/09/2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1219 of 2021
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARESH UPADHYAY
and
HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE ASHOKKUMAR C. JOSHI
=======================================
Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed
1 NO
to see the judgment ?
2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? NO
Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of
3 NO
the judgment ?
Whether this case involves a substantial question
4 of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of NO
India or any order made thereunder ?
=======================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
MANJIBHAI VASTABHAI PATEL
=======================================
Appearance:
MR HARDIK SONI, APP (2) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
=======================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARESH UPADHYAY
and
HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE ASHOKKUMAR C. JOSHI
Date : 15/09/2021
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER : HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE ASHOKKUMAR C. JOSHI)
1. The State has filed this acquittal appeal challenging the
judgment and order passed by the Additional Special Judge,
Tharad, District: Banaskantha dated 26.11.2020 in Special Case
R/CR.A/1219/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/09/2021
Nos. 6 of 2018 and 8 of 2018. The trial was held against three
accused for having committed the offences punishable under
Sections 323, 324, 325, 326, 504, 506(2) read with Section 114 of
the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (herein after referred to as "the
IPC") and Sections 3(1)(x) and 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes
and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (herein
after referred to as "the Atrocity Act") .
2. Heard Mr. Hardik Soni, learned Additional Public Prosecutor
for the appellant - State.
3. It is noted that the learned Additional Public Prosecutor has
taken this Court extensively through the judgment and order of
the learned Special Judge.
4.1 The learned Additional Public Prosecutor, inviting attention
of the Court, more particularly to paragraph 19 of the impugned
judgment, has submitted that though the prosecution has
established its case beyond reasonable doubt, the final
conclusion arrived at by the Special Court acquitting the accused
from the offences charged against them, is erroneous and the
same needs to be interfered with by this Court. He vehemently
submitted that the accused used derogatory words in public view
and beaten up the brother of the original complainant, which is
proved by the evidence on record, however, the Special Judge
has disbelieved the case of the prosecution and has acquitted the
accused of the charges levelled against them. It is submitted
that this appeal be entertained.
5. Having heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for
the State and having considered the material on record, this
R/CR.A/1219/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/09/2021
Court finds as under:
5.1 The incident had taken place on 05.02.2012; place is Mouje:
Tirthgam, Taluka: Vav, District: Banaskantha.
5.2 The accused and the injured are of the same village.
5.3 The injured himself has admitted that at the time of the
incident, he was in inebriated condition (PW-7, Exh. 23) and he
was convicted in the case of drinking liquor.
5.4 The Medical Officer (PW-9, Exh. 26) has deposed to state
that the injuries sustained by the injured could be possible by
falling down from the bullock cart.
5.5 So far as the case under the Atrocity Act is concerned, the
Special Judge, on due appreciation of evidence on record, has
come to a specific conclusion that ingredients of such offence are
not established.
5.6 The Special Court has, on the basis of the evidence
adduced before it, arrived at the judgment that the prosecution
has failed in proving the case alleged against the accused
persons beyond reasonable doubt. We find that, on the basis of
the evidence on record and considering the totality, the Special
Court cannot be said to have committed any error in that regard.
5.7 The judgment of the Special Court need not be interfered
with on this count.
6.1 At this juncture, a beneficial reference may be made to a
R/CR.A/1219/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/09/2021
decision of the Apex Court in Lalit Kumar Sharma and Others
v. Superintendent and Remembrancer of Legal Affairs,
Govt. of W.B., AIR 1989 SC 2134, wherein, the Court has held
that:
"It is now well settled that the power of an appellate Court
to review evidence in appeals against acquittal is an
extensive as its powers in appeals against convictions, but
that power is with a note of caution that the appellate Court
should be slow in interfering with the orders of acquittal
unless there are compelling reasons to do so. If a finding
reached by the trial Judge cannot be said to be an
unreasonable finding, then the appellate Court should not
disturb that finding even if it is possible to reach a different
conclusion on the basis of the material on record."
6.2 In totality, we find that, the impugned judgment and order
recorded by the Special Court, does not call for any interference
by this Court. This appeal, therefore, needs to be dismissed.
7.1 While dismissing this appeal, it is clarified that, the findings
and observations of this Court in this judgment are on the basis
of the submissions made before this Court in the appeal filed by
the State after seeking leave of this Court under section 378(1)
(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 and in the event, any
appeal is filed by the victim, the same may be examined on its
own merits.
8. This appeal is dismissed with above observations and
clarifications.
[ Paresh Upadhyay, J. ]
[ A. C. Joshi, J. ]
hiren
