Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Indrasinh Nathubava Matieda on 22 April, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1547/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/04/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1547 of 2008
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE S.V. PINTO
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting No
==========================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
INDRASINH NATHUBAVA MATIEDA & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
Ms. Dhwani Tripathi, APP for the Appellant(s) No. 1
ADVOCATE NOTICE NOT RECD BACK for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s)
No. 1
BAILABLE WARRANT SERVED for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 2
BAILABLE WARRANT UNSERVED for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1
DHAVAL A PARMAR(7780) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 3
MAHESHKUMAR S VASAVA(9394) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE S.V. PINTO
Date : 22/04/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. The appeal is 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. 5, Bharuch
Camp at Ankleshwar (hereinafter referred to as "the learned
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1547/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/04/2025
undefined
Trial Court") in Special Atrocity Case No. 34/2007 on
25.02.2008, whereby, the learned Trial Court has acquitted
the respondent for the offence punishable under Sections
323, 504 and 114 of IPC and Section 3(1)(10) of Schedule
Caste and Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,
1989 (hereinafter referred to as "the 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 18.04.2007, the complainant - Babubhai
Mangabhai Vasava was working in survey no. 351 which
was an agricultural land situated in the outskirts of village
Bhalod along with five labourers. Witness Jeevkuvarba
Ramjibhai Gorasiya was standing near the labourers and at
around 10.30 am, the accused no. 1 came hurling abuses
and shouting, and the complainant - Babubhai Mangabhai
Vasava and witness Ramjibhai Kalyanbhai Gorasiya came
running to the place. The accused abused them and told
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1547/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/04/2025
undefined
them that their pipeline was broken and to shut it as he
wanted to drive the tractor and the accused no. 2 in support
of the accused no. 1 hurled caste slurs and abuses; and
assaulted the complainant. The complainant filed the
complaint at the Umalla Police Station under Sections 323,
504 and 114 of the IPC and Section 3(1)(10) of the Atrocities
Act which came to be registered at Umalla Police Station II -
C.R. No. 21 of 2007.
2.2 The Investigating Officer recorded the statements of
the connected witnesses and seized the necessary
documents and after completion of investigation, a charge-
sheet came to be filed before the learned Judicial Magistrate
First Class, Zhagadiya and as the said offences against the
accused were exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions,
the case was committed to the Special Court, Bharuch as
per the provisions of Section 209 of Code of Criminal
Procedure and the case was registered as Special Atrocity
Case No. 34/2007.
2.3 The accused was duly served with the summons and
the accused appeared before the learned Trial Court and it
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1547/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/04/2025
undefined
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. A charge at Exh. 7 was framed against the
accused and the statements of the accused were recorded at
Exhs. 8 and 9, wherein, the accused denied 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 EVIDENCE
Sr. No. PW Name of the witness Exh.
Yadav
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1547/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/04/2025
undefined
DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE
Sr. No. Particulars Exh.
Certificate
9 School leaving certificate Mark A
2.5 After the learned APP 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 APP and the learned advocate for the accused were
heard, the learned Trial Court by the impugned judgement
and order was pleased to acquit all the accused from the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1547/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/04/2025
undefined
charges levelled against them.
3. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said
judgment and order of acquittal, the appellant - State has
filed the present appeal mainly stating that the impugned
judgment 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 the cross-examination, nothing adverse has been
elicited in favor of the respondents. The case has been
proved beyond reasonable doubt and the prosecution has
successfully established the case against the respondents
and the judgment and order of acquittal is unwarranted,
illegal, and without any basis in the eyes of the law and the
reasons stated while acquitting the 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 Ms. Dhwani Tripathi for the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1547/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/04/2025
undefined
appellant State and learned advocate Mr. Dhawal Parmar
for the respondents. 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. Dhwani Tripathi has taken this Court
through the entire evidence of the prosecution on record of
the case and has submitted that the complainant has fully
supported the facts of his complaint. The impugned
judgement and order is perverse and learned APP has urged
this Court to quash and set aside the same and find the
respondent guilty for the offences.
6. At the outset, before discussing the facts of the
present case, it would be appropriate to refer to the
observations of the Apex Court regarding the scope of
interference 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 Vs. State of M.P. (2006) 10 SCC 313, this
Court stated:
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1547/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/04/2025
undefined
"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".
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
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1547/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/04/2025
undefined
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. 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
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1547/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/04/2025
undefined
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. 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.
8. In light of the above settled principle of law, the
evidence of the prosecution is dissected and the
prosecution has examined PW1 - Babubhai Mangabhai
Vasava at Exh. 12 and the witness is the complainant who
has fully supported the contents of the complaint which is
produced at Exh. 13 and has produced his caste certificate
at Exh. 14. During the cross-examination by the learned
advocate for the accused, the witness has stated that he is
working for Ramjibhai Kalyanbhai Gorasiya - the owner of
the land since 03.05.2006 and he is doing the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1547/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/04/2025
undefined
administration of the land. Towards the north of the field of
Ramjibhai is the agricultural land of the accused no. 1 and
on the other side is the agricultural land of Ramjibhai
where he has a bore well. The water from the well has been
taken to the other well through a pipeline which is dug into
the land and in the complaint, he has not stated that the
accused no. 1 had hit him with a brick. The complaint was
filed at about 03.00 pm and he had shown the place of
offence to the Umalla Police Inspector who had recorded his
statements. Near the place of incident are the fields of
Ramjibhai, and Ramjibhai and Jeevkuvarba stay at Surat.
8.1 The prosecution has examined PW2 - Ramjibhai
Kalyanbhai Gorasiya at Exh. 15 and the witness has stated
that he has 19 acres of land in the outskirts of Bhalod
village and 4 acres land in the outskirts of Prakand village
where he has cultivated sugarcane crop. He has also
cultivated sugarcane in survey no. 351 and the
complainant - Babubhai Mangabhai Vasava looks after the
lands situated in Prakand village. That he often comes for
administration of the land and on 17.04.2007, he and his
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1547/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/04/2025
undefined
wife Jeevkuvarba had come to Prakand village and stayed
for the night and on 18.04.2007 at around 08.00 am they
had gone to survey no. 351 with labourers. That the hand
pump was not working and the complainant - Babubhai
was repairing the same and some of the labourers were
spraying pesticides and his wife Jeevkuvarba was standing
near some labourers who were working and at around
10.00 am the accused no. 1 came and started abusing his
wife and him. That he ran towards his wife and asked the
accused no. 1 why was he hurling abuses and he was told
that the pipeline was broken and they should repair it and
at that time the accused no. 2 also came and hurled caste
slurs to the complainant and started assaulting him. They
also assaulted the witness on his shoulder and the other
neighbours came and the accused no. 2 hit the
complainant with a brick on his right knee and one another
person was also injured with the brick and the accused no.
1 caught the shirt of the witness. During the cross
examination by the learned advocate for the accused the
witness has stated that whenever they come to the field
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1547/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/04/2025
undefined
they stay at the house of the complainant and the
complainant acts as per his instructions. He does not know
the neighbours who had come at the time of the incident
but four to five people had come and his field is near the
field of the accused no. 1. The pipeline for water for his field
was taken through the field of the accused no. 1 and at the
time of the incident the pipeline was not leaking. The
accused no. 1 had come to tell him to remove the pipeline
which was put by the witness in the field of the accused no.
1 and the witness has stated that at the time of the incident
the accused no. 1 had asked him to remove the pipeline
and had threatened to file a civil suit in the Civil Court.
8.2 The prosecution has examined PW3 - Jeevkuvarba
Ramjibhai Gorasiya and the witness is an eyewitness to the
incident and was present at the place of incident and has
fully supported the case of the prosecution. During the
cross examination by the learned advocate for the accused
the witness has stated that after the incident she does not
know where Babubhai had gone and she had gone to the
Umalla Police Station with her husband and at that time
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1547/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/04/2025
undefined
the complainant Babubhai had filed the complaint in their
presence.
8.3 The prosecution has examined PW4 - Rajubhai
Ratnabhai Vasava and the witness was working as a
labourer in the field of Ramjibhai Kalyanbhai Garasia at the
time of the incident. The witness is an eyewitness to the
incident and has fully supported the case of the
prosecution. During the cross examination by the learned
advocate for the accused the witness has stated that he had
witnessed the incident from a distance of about 15 to 20
feet and he did not intervene while the fight was going on.
The witness has voluntarily stated that he was afraid and
he ran away and he does not know what happened
thereafter.
8.4 The prosecution has examined PW5 - Praveenbhai
Danabhai Vasava at Exh. 18 and the witness has stated
that on 18.04.2007 he had gone to his agricultural land
situated in the outskirts of Prakand village and after doing
his work in his field, he had gone to drink water at the field
of Ramjibhai as there was a bore well at that place. At
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1547/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/04/2025
undefined
around 10.30 am the accused no. 1 was abusing the wife of
Ramjibhai and the complainant Babubhai and others ran
towards Jeevkuvarba. The accused no. 1 had told them that
the pipeline was broken and to shut it as he had to drive
his tractor and at that time Fatehsinh - the accused no. 2
came and abused the complainant and hurled caste slurs
against him. Ramjibhai intervened and and saved the
complainant - Babubhai from further assault. During the
cross examination by the learned advocate for the accused
the witness has stated that he and the complainant -
Babubhai are of the same community and while the
incident was going on, he did not intervene. In his police
statement, he did not state that he had gone to drink water.
8.5 The prosecution has examined PW6 - Balvantbhai
Bhikhabhai Vasava at Exh. 19 and the witness was working
as a laborer at the time of the incident. The witness has
stated that he along with Babubhai Mangabhai, Ramjibhai
and his wife, Mukeshbhai Mangabhai, Rajubhai Ratnabhai,
Nareshbhai and Sahdevbhai had gone to the field of
Ramjibhai where sugarcane was growing and he was doing
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1547/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/04/2025
undefined
the field work, Rajubhai was spraying pesticides and
Jeevkuvarba - the wife of Ramjibhai was standing near
them. Babubhai was at the edge of the field repairing the
pump and at that time the accused no. 1 came towards
them and abused them. The accused no. 2 also came and
told Ramjibhai that his pipeline was broken and to close it
as they wanted to drive the tractor and the accused no. 2
hurled caste abuses and assaulted the complainant. During
the cross examination by the learned advocate for the
accused the witness has stated that the accused no. 2 does
not have any agricultural land nearby and the accused no.
1 had come to tell Ramjibhai that the pipeline that was
placed in his field should be removed. The field of the
accused no. 1 is near the field of Balwantbhai and he and
Babubhai Mangabhai are of the same community. That he
does not he did not see whether the pipeline was broken or
not and Babubhai - the complainant is a person of
Ramjibhai.
8.6 The prosecution has examined PW7 - Madhavbhai
Shanabai Vasava at Exh. 20 and the witness is the panch
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1547/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/04/2025
undefined
witness of the panchnama of the place of offence which is
produced at Exh. 21. The witness has fully supported the
case of the prosecution and during the cross examination
by the learned advocate for the accused the witness has
stated that he is a tractor driver and the police had come to
call him between 03.00 pm and 03.30 pm and he had gone
to the place of incident. He and the complainant are of the
same caste and are neighbors and the complainant -
Babubhai works as per the advice of Ramjibhai.
8.7 The prosecution has examined PW8 - Dr.
Sureshnandan Ramnarayan Yadav at Exh. 22 and the
witness was working as a Medical Officer in the Community
Health Center, Umalla on 18.04.2007. The witness has
stated that at around 09.40 pm - Babubhai Mangabhai
Vasava resident of Prakand Taluka, Zaghadiya had come
with the police yadi for treatment. In the history the patient
has stated that on the same day at around 10.30 am
Fatehsing Gumansing Mateida and Indrasing Mateida had
assaulted him with stones and fists. On examination there
was an abrasion of 1 cm x 1 cm on the left knee which was
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1547/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/04/2025
undefined
reddish in color and the injured had complained of pain on
the back of the chest and left shoulder was painful on
movement. The injuries were simple in nature and could be
by a hard and blunt substance and would recover within 5
to 7 days if no complication occurs. The witness has
produced the medical certificate at Exh. 24. During the
cross examination by the learned advocate for the accused
the witness has stated that the pain as stated by the
patient could be imaginary and injury no. 1 could also be
self-inflicted.
8.8 The prosecution has examined PW9 - Bahadurbhai
Nathubhai Patel at Exh. 27 and the witness was working as
the Executive Magistrate at Zhagadia and he has produced
the caste certificate of the complainant at Exh. 28. The
witness has stated that the caste certificate was issued on
the basis of the school leaving certificate and the copy of
the school leaving certificate is produced at Exh. 29. During
the cross examination by the learned advocate for the
accused the witness has stated that it is not necessary to
take an affidavit from the person who comes to take the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1547/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/04/2025
undefined
caste certificate and in the ration card and voting card the
name mentioned is Babubhai Mangubhai Vasava. The
certificate also states Babubhai Mangubhai Vasava and
besides the ration card, he has not taken any other
evidence about the parents, brothers and sisters of the
complainant. That he has not recorded the statements of
any witnesses regarding the caste of the complainant and
had not taken the electoral role and at what number the
name of the complainant is mentioned. That no spot
verification regarding the caste certificate was done and no
record was taken from the Talati of Prakand village for
giving the certificate of the complainant. The caste
certificate was issued on the same day of the application.
That the applicant had filed the application and his
statement was not recorded by any Investigating Officer
regarding the caste certificate of the complainant.
8.9 The prosecution has examined PW10 - Bahadurbhai
Mohanbhai Vasava at Exh. 30 and the witness was the In-
charge Police Sub-Inspector of Umalla Police Station on
18.04.2007 when the complainant came to record his
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1547/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/04/2025
undefined
complaint which was recorded and registered at Umalla
Police Station II C.R. No. 21 of 2007 under Sections 323,
34, 504 and 114 of IPC and Section 3(1)(10) of the Atrocity
Act.
8.10 The prosecution has examined PW11 - Narendrasinh
Hathubhai Raijara at Exh. 34 and the witness is the
Investigating Officer who has narrated in detail the entire
procedure undertaken by him during investigation. The
witness has stated that at the time of the incident he was
working as the Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Ankleshwar Division and on the basis of the order of the
Superintendent of Police, Bharuch he had taken over the
investigation of the offense registered at Umalla Police
Station II C.R. No. 21/2007. During the cross examination
by the learned advocate the witness has stated that he had
taken over the investigation on 18.04.2007 at 19.45 hours
from Umalla Police Station and in the panchnama produced
at Exh. 25 his signature is not seen. That the panchnama
has to be signed at the place of incident where it is drawn
and he has to affix his signature in the presence of the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1547/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/04/2025
undefined
panch witnesses. The panchnama produced at Exh. 25 was
prepared at night. The witness Jeevkuvarba has not stated
that the accused were abusing her and has not stated what
abuses were being hurled towards her. That he has not
recorded the statements of any owners of the neighboring
fields and has not recorded the statements of any laborers
who were working in those fields at the time of the incident.
The place of incident is a privately owned place and he has
not made any investigation about the caste certificate of the
complainant. That till the accused were arrested he did not
take any documentary evidence about the caste of the
complainant and the water pipeline was not seized as a
muddamal during investigation.
9. On reappreciation of the entire evidence of the
prosecution, the facts that have come on record are that
PW2 - Ramjibhai Kalyanbhai Gorasiya had two fields one
towards the west and one towards the south of the field of
the accused no. 1 and PW2 Ramjibhai had taken a water
pipe connection from one of his fields to the other field by
an underground pipe through the field of the accused no. 1.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1547/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/04/2025
undefined
On the date of incident the accused no. 1 went to tell PW2 -
Ramjibhai Kalyanbhai Gorasiya and his wife Jeevkuvarba
Ramjibhai Gorasiya to remove the pipeline as he had to till
his land with the tractor and the pipe was broken and the
complaint has been filed by the complainant - Babubhai
Mangabhai Vasava who was tilling the land of Ramjibhai
Kalyanbhai Gorasiya. What has emerged on record is that
the accused no. 1 had come to tell Ramjibhai Kalyanbhai
Gorasiya to remove the pipeline and at that time the
complainant Babubhai Mangabhai Vasava was at the edge
of the field repairing a pump. There was no reason for the
accused no. 1 to abuse and hurl caste slurs against the
complainant - Babubhai Mangabhai Vasava as he had no
dispute with the accused no. 1. The dispute about the
pipeline that the accused no. 1 had was with Ramjibhai
Kalyanbhai Gorasiya. In the deposition of the witness, the
contradictions have come on record in detail and the
complainant has not stated in the complaint that he was
assaulted with a brick and the presence of the accused no.
2 at the place of incident is doubtful and not proved beyond
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1547/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/04/2025
undefined
reasonable doubts. It has also emerged on record that the
complainant - Babubhai Mangabhai Vasava being a
member of the Schedule Tribe was tilling the land of PW2 -
Ramjibhai Kalyanbhai Gorasiya and was fully acting as per
the advice of PW2 - Ramjibhai Kalyanbhai Gorasiya. The
learned Trial Court has concluded that the accused no. 1
had merely gone to tell PW2 - Ramjibhai Kalyanbhai
Gorasiya to remove the pipeline but the complaint has been
filed by the complainant on behalf of Ramjibhai Kalyanbhai
Gorasiya to pressurize the accused. Moreover, the
Investigating Officer was not authorized to investigate the
offence under the Atrocity Act by any notification of the
Government and the place where the incident had occurred
was a private place and not a public place.
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
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1547/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/04/2025
undefined
is of the considered opinion that the learned Trial Court
was completely justified in acquitting the accused of the
charges leveled against them. 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
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.
5, Bharuch Camp at Ankleshwar in Special Atrocity Case
No. 34/2007 on 25.02.2008, is hereby confirmed.
12. Bail bond stands cancelled. Record and proceedings
be sent back to the concerned Trial Court forthwith.
(S. V. PINTO,J)
VASIM S. SAIYED
