Gujarat High Court
Thakor Amaraji Nathaji vs State Of Gujarat on 1 July, 2025
Author: Gita Gopi
Bench: Gita Gopi
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/478/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/07/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 478 of 2006
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE GITA GOPI
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
√
==========================================================
THAKOR AMARAJI NATHAJI & ORS.
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR JM PANCHAL, SENIOR ADVOCATE assisted by MR KJ PANCHAL for
the Appellant(s) no. 1
MS MONALI BHATT, ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the
Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) no. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE GITA GOPI
Date : 01/07/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. The present appeal was filed by four appellants challenging
the judgment and order of conviction and sentence
pronounced on 4.3.2006 by the Presiding Officer, Fast
Track Court, Ahmedabad (Rural) in Special Atrocity Case
no.37 of 2004. The case against the accused was under
sections 323, 452, 504, 506(2) and 114 of the Indian Penal
Code, 1860 (IPC) and section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/478/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/07/2025
undefined
Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities Act),
1989 (hereinafter referred to as "the Atrocities Act").
2. The learned Judge found the accused guilty under section
323, read with section 114 of IPC and sentenced the
accused for six months rigorous imprisonment. For the
section 452, read with section 114 of IPC, the sentence
ordered was one year rigourous imprisonment and
Rs.500/- fine, in default of payment of fine, further 15 days
simple imprisonment. Further, for the offence under
section 504, read with section 114 of IPC, 3 months
rigourous imprisonment, and the sentence for section
506(2) with section 114 of IPC, ordered six months
rigourous imprisonment, while for the offence under
section 3(1)(x) of the Atrocities Act, the punishment is for
one year rigourous imprisonment and Rs.500/- fine and in
failure to payment of the fine, one month simple
imprisonment.
3. Appellant no.1 died during the pendency of the appeal.
Thus, the appeal stands abated against appellant no.1. It
has been submitted that appellant no.4 was juvenile at the
time of alleged offence.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/478/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/07/2025
undefined
4. The case against the accused as alleged can be briefly laid
down as under:-
4.1 Original complainant - Surajben Sardhanbhai Parmar
resident of Jagatpur Taluka Dascroi, filed a criminal
complaint on 29.5.2004 alleging that 10 years prior,
accused no.1 had borrowed an amount of Rs.10,000/-
from her mother-in-law, Ramiben Jenabhai Parmar, as
there was an occasion of marriage ceremony of daughter of
accused no.1. Inspite of repeated demands, the borrowed
money was not repaid. It is stated that accused no.1 sold
his land on 24.5.2004, so the complainant demanded the
borrowed amount from accused no.1. It is alleged that
accused no.1 got excited and retorted saying, 'what
amount and what the talk' and gave threat to kill if the
amount was demanded. It was further alleged that the
complainant and others got frightened and dared not to
say anything.
4.2 It is alleged in the complaint that on the same day, i.e. on
24.5.2004 at about 10.00 PM, accused nos.1 and 2 came
with sticks and started hurling abuses loudly and dragged
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/478/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/07/2025
undefined
the complainant out of her house. It is alleged that accused
no.1 gave a stick blow on the waist and accused no.2 gave
a stick blow on the right hand and also gave pushes with
stick on her right leg. It is also alleged that accused nos.3
and 4 who had also come there were standing outside the
house, gave fist and kick blows to the complainant.
4.3 It is stated that the complainant raised alarm and her
husband Sardhanbhai and neighbour, Ashokbhai Sombhai
Parmar came there, intervened, to save her from further
beatings. It is alleged that while going, the accused persons
used abusive/insulting language, referring to their caste
gave threat to kill, in case of demanding money.
5. Learned Senior Advocate Mr. J.M. Panchal assisted by
learned advocate Mr. K.J. Panchal submitted referring to
charge at Exh.4, that the dispute as alleged was about
some monetary transaction, which had taken place ten
years ago, thus, learned Senior Advocate Mr. Panchal
submitted that the dispute was not because that the
accused were of Scheduled Caste. Learned Senior Advocate
Mr. Panchal has submitted that there would not be any
case of disregard with the caste. Had it been so, there
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/478/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/07/2025
undefined
would not have been any monetary transaction with the
mother. Advocate Mr. Panchal submitted that as per the
charge, accused no.1 refuted the demand of money, which
itself shows that the incident had nothing to do with the
caste and prima facie, there was no offence under the
Atrocities Act.
5.1 Learned Senior Advocate Mr. Panchal, referring to the
medical evidence at Exh.25 along with the deposition of the
Doctor - PW6 - Maheshbhai Narottamdas Chauhan,
submitted that the victim lady - injured complainant -
Surajben Sardhanbhai Parmar had only named accused
no.1 while giving the history before the Doctor and the
quarrel was stated to be of money and had alleged before
the Doctor that the accused no.1 at about 10:00 hrs. at
night, had come to her house and beaten her with the
stick. Learned Senior Advocate Mr. Panchal, thus, stated
that the complainant had not named any other accused
and as per the deposition of the Doctor as well as the
certificate, the injured was conscious and cooperative and
thus, learned Senior Advocate Mr. Panchal has submitted
that being in full consciousness, she would certainly have
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/478/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/07/2025
undefined
given the names of all those who were involved in the
beatings.
5.2 Learned Senior Advocate Mr. Panchal further submitted
that as per the facts of the present case, the mother of the
husband of the complainant had lended Rs.10,000/- to the
accused no.1 and on 24.5.2004, in the morning, the
husband of the complainant - PW3 Savdhanbhai had
asked for money in the morning and thus, learned Senior
Advocate Mr. Panchal submitted that there was no reason
for the accused to return back for the dispute during the
night for the same cause.
5.3 Learned Senior Advocate Mr. Panchal has submitted that
the FIR itself becomes doubtful, while comparing the facts
as stated in the complaint before the Executive Magistrate
for the Chapter Case under Sections 107 and 151 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (For short "Cr.P.C.").
Referring to Exh.40, learned Senior Advocate Mr. Panchal
submitted that the complainant is Kundanbhai
Savdhanbhai - son of the present complainant who had
alleged of the incident of the same date i.e. 24.5.2004 and
as per the complaint at Exh.40, the father - Savdhanbhai
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/478/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/07/2025
undefined
in the evening on 24.5.2004 was passing by the house of
the accused no.1, at that time, father - Savdhanbhai had
demanded the money and there was verbal quarrel,
thereafter, there was settlement on that very day before the
representatives of the Village between the complainant of
Exh.40 as well as the opponents who were shown as eight
in number and submitted that as per the complaint, after
the settlement, on the next day i.e. 25.5.2004, as alleged,
there was verbal quarrel between the complainant and
eight opponents and therefore, he had filed the complaint
for maintenance of peace. Learned Senior Advocate Mr.
Panchal, thus, stated that the application of the son of the
complainant does not refer to any weapon, nor any
complaint of causing any injury to the mother or dragging
her out of the house. There is no case of assault or abuse
or of insulting any of them by their caste. Learned Senior
Advocate Mr. Panchal, thus, stated that the son of the
complainant has only referred to verbal altercation and
quarrel and that there was no question of beating or
dragging the complainant out of the house. Exh.40 was
registered on 26.5.2004 at Sarkhej Police Station. Learned
Senior Advocate Mr. Panchal contended that Kundanbhai
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/478/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/07/2025
undefined
was not examined, while another son- Mahesh
Savdhanbhai has been examined as PW5. Learned Senior
Advocate Mr. Panchal has submitted that in Exh.40, in the
Chapter Case, all the family members including three
ladies are implicated.
5.4 Thus, raising a difference between the charge at Exh.4 and
the application under Sections 107 and 151 of the Cr.P.C.
Exh.40, learned Senior Advocate Mr. Panchal submitted
that the charge was framed in the matter against four
accused, while the Chapter Case was against eight of them.
5.5 Referring to the complaint Exh.19 dated 29.5.2004,
learned Senior Advocate Mr. Panchal submitted that the
delay has not been sufficiently explained. There is wide
contradiction between Exhs.19 and 40. PW1, who is a
Panch for the recovery of the bamboo sticks, has turned
hostile. He had denied of any such production of bamboo
sticks by the accused - Amaraji Nathaji and Yogeshji
Amaraji. PW2 as also the Panch witness too has not
supported the Panchnama at Exh.11 in connection with
the bamboo sticks.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/478/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/07/2025
undefined
5.6 Learned Senior Advocate Mr. Panchal submitted that the
part of the body, where the injured complainant alleged to
have received the beatings by the stick does not get
corroboration from the injury certificate, where according
to the husband, his wife was beaten at the waist, while no
such injury is reflected in Exh.25. Further submitting and
referring to PW4 - the injured complainant, learned Senior
Advocate Mr. Panchal has stated that the injured should
be reliable and truthful witness, she could not play with
the life of the accused. Learned Senior Advocate Mr.
Panchal has submitted that the injured complainant
appears to have no regards for law. The evidence can be
believed only if it is reliable and truthful. The examination-
in-chief of PW4 does not say of any injury by the stick by
the accused no.2 and the son of the complainant has been
examined as PW5 who was staying on the upper floor, who
does not say of seeing the incident. PW10 and PW11,
Panchas of the place of incident do not refer to anything
recovered from the place of the incident. The evidence do
suggest that there were houses of Thakore community,
Raval community and Harijan community in the
neighbourhood, inspite of that, no one is examined. PW7-
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/478/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/07/2025
undefined
Ashokbhai Somabhai Parmar is an interested witness as he
is related to the complainant from her parental side, while
PW8 - Gangaben is the sister-in-law who had turned
hostile and had not supported the case of the complainant.
5.7 Referring to the evidence of PW12, Probationer PSI, learned
Senior Advocate Mr. Panchal stated that from the very
beginning, the FIR disclosed the allegation under the
Atrocities Act and therefore, submitted that the
investigation by the Police Sub-Inspector is bad in law. The
preliminary investigation becomes very vital under the
Atrocities Act and no satisfactory clarification has been
called, for delay in filing the FIR.
5.8 PW13 - Kantilal Laxmanbhai Chavda is the Deputy
Superintendent of Police who received the charge of
investigation on 30.5.2004 and according to his evidence,
on that very same day, he had asked the complainant to go
for the medical examination. Exh.35 - caste certificate was
procured. Learned Senior Advocate Mr. Panchal, referring
to the depositions of Defence Witnesses i.e. D1, D2 and D3,
submitted that as per Exh.40, the Village people had
gathered on 24.5.2004 and had settled the issue with
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/478/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/07/2025
undefined
regard to the monetary transaction and for that purpose,
DW1 and DW2 were examined. There is no denial of verbal
altercation, DW1 and DW2 are independent witnesses, they
have not stated of any abuse with castiest remarks to the
complainant or her family members. Referring to the
deposition of DW3 at Exh.39, learned Senior Advocate Mr.
Panchal submitted that on 24.5.2004, DW3 was ASI at
Sarkhej Police Station and he had received the complaint of
Kundanbhai, son of the complainant referred in Exh.40,
the application was given on 25.5.2004, he had taken the
statement of complainant - Kundanbhai and witness -
Savdhanbhai, the father and had taken the preventive
steps against the opponents and had clarified that when he
recorded the statement, neither Savdhanbhai, nor
Kundanbhai had alleged of any beatings or any insulting
utterance with regard to their caste and that he stated that
he had proceeded against eight persons under Sections
107 and 151 of the Cr.P.C. and after the arrest on
26.5.2004, he had filed Chapter Case no.175/04. In the
cross-examination, the witness had referred to the facts
stated in the complaint and had affirmed that in the
application, there is no allegation of any incident of 10
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/478/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/07/2025
undefined
O'Clock night on 24.5.2004 and stated that he has no
knowledge of the complaint filed by Surajben.
5.9 Learned Senior Advocate Mr. Panchal submitted that it is
very hard to believe that the person would make a recovery
of Rs.10,000/- which would be ten years due and that too,
after the death of the mother, thus to bring pressure, a
complaint has been filed to exploit the situation under the
Atrocities Act and submitted that it would be a case of
granting compensation to the accused since the
complainant has exploited the provisions of the Atrocities
Act and during the whole of the situation, they have freely
added and subtracted the persons making false
accusations, and stated that it is a case of extortion by the
complainant herself and thus, stated that it was because of
that reason, the investigation was to be directly handed
over to the Deputy Superintendent of Police. Learned
Senior Advocate Mr. Panchal has submitted that the
accused no.4, a juvenile has also been falsely roped in the
matter and submitted that the accused are required to be
acquitted with exemplary cost.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/478/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/07/2025
undefined
6. Countering the arguments, it was the submission of Ms.
Monali Bhatt, learned APP that the complainant herself is
the victim who had lodged the FIR. The corroboration could
be found from the medical evidence as well as the oral
evidence. The delay in filing the FIR was because of
intervention of the village people, and that she was
receiving threats. The circumstances explains the delay.
The injury sustained by her has been explained by the
Doctor in the medical evidence. There were threat by the
villagers restraining her to file the complaint and thus,
under the fear, there has been a delay. PW5, the son has
corroborated the incident along with the husband PW3.
PW7 is the independent witness who was present there,
when the incident had taken place. Ms. Bhatt, learned APP
has submitted that the medical history also corroborates
the fact of the dispute regarding the money, which gets
supported by the evidence of the husband-PW3-
Savdhanbhai. Ms. Bhatt, learned APP has submitted that
the offence under Section 452 of the IPC also gets proved,
as the accused nos.1 and 2 had entered the house of the
complainant and dragged her out and abused her in the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/478/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/07/2025
undefined
public eye and thus, submitted that the conviction is just
and proper.
7. In the background of the arguments and the facts and
evidence, the case has to be examined from the view point
as to whether the offence has been committed in a place
within public view, as contemplated under the Atrocities
Act. The ground is raised that appellant no.4 was juvenile
at the time of the alleged offence. On 23.1.2020, the claim
regarding the juvenility of the appellant no.4 was raised
and as per Section 9(2) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and
Protection of Children) Act, 2015, the Court had called
upon to verify the school leaving certificate of appellant
no.4 and the death certificate of the appellant no.1. The
verification was done by the Police Sub-Inspector,
Chandkheda Police Station, Ahmedabad City and the
police had received a communication of the Principal of
Swami Vivekanand Vidhyalay for the ex-student registered
at G.R. no.463 and had affirmed the issuance of the school
leaving certificate. The principal had also given a copy of
the school leaving certificate, which was ordered to be
verified as was placed by the learned advocate of the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/478/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/07/2025
undefined
appellant no.4. Both are same and hence, the school
leaving certificate produced by the learned advocate of the
appellant no.4 was found true. The date of birth is shown
as 14.7.1986 and hence, considering the date of incident
as 24.5.2004, the age of the appellant no.4 would have
been 17 years 10 months 10 days.
8. In the case of Abdul Razzaq v. State of U.P., reported in
(2015) 15 SCC 637, wherein it has been observed as
under:-
"9. The legal position on the subject is well
settled. A person below 18 years at the time
of the incident can claim benefit of the Act
any time. Reference may be made to Section
7-A and 20 of the Act and Rule 12 of the
Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection of
Children) Rules, 2007 which are as follows:
"Section 7-A. Procedure to be followed
when claim of juvenility is raised before any
court.--
(1) Whenever a claim of juvenility is raised
before any court or a court is of the opinion
that an accused person was a juvenile on the
date of commission of the offence, the court
shall make an enquiry, take such evidence
as may be necessary (but not an affidavit) so
as to determine the age of such person, and
shall record a finding whether the person is a
juvenile or a child or not, stating his age as
nearly as may be:
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/478/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/07/2025
undefined
Provided that a claim of juvenility may
be raised before any court and it shall be
recognised at any stage, even after final
disposal of the case, and such claim shall be
determined in terms of the provisions
contained in this Act and the rules made
thereunder, even if the juvenile has ceased to
be so on or before the date of commencement
of this Act.
(2) If the court finds a person to be a
juvenile on the date of commission of the
offence under sub-section (1), it shall
forward the juvenile to the Board for passing
appropriate order, and the sentence if any,
passed by a court shall be deemed to have
no effect."
"Section 20. Special provision in respect of
pending cases.--Notwithstanding anything
contained in this Act, all proceedings in
respect of a juvenile pending in any court in
any area on the date on which this Act
comes into force in that area, shall be
continued in that court as if this Act had not
been passed and if the court finds that the
juvenile has committed an offence, it shall
record such finding and instead of passing
any sentence in respect of the juvenile,
forward the juvenile to the Board which shall
pass orders in respect of that juvenile in
accordance with the provisions of this Act as
if it had been satisfied on inquiry under this
Act that a juvenile has committed the
offence:
Provided that the Board may, for any
adequate and special reason to be mentioned
in the order, review the case and pass
appropriate order in the interest of such
juvenile.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/478/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/07/2025
undefined
Explanation.-- In all pending cases including
trial, revision, appeal or any other criminal
proceedings in respect of a juvenile in
conflict with law, in any court, the
determination of juvenility of such a juvenile
shall be in terms of clause (l) of Section 2,
even if the juvenile ceases to be so on or
before the date of commencement of this Act
and the provisions of this Act shall apply as
if the said provisions had been in force, for
all purposes and at all material times when
the alleged offence was committed."
"Rule 12. Procedure to be followed in
determination of age.--
(1) In every case concerning a child or a
juvenile in conflict with law, the court or the
Board or as the case may be the Committee
referred to in Rule 19 of these Rules shall
determine the age of such juvenile or child or
a juvenile in conflict with law within a period
of thirty days from the date of making of the
application for that purpose.
(2) The court or the Board or as the case
may be the Committee shall decide the
juvenility or otherwise of the juvenile or the
child or as the case may be the juvenile in
conflict with law, prima facie on the basis of
physical appearance or documents, if
available, and send him to the observation
home or in jail.
(3) In every case concerning a child or
juvenile in conflict with law, the age
determination inquiry shall be conducted by
the court or the Board or, as the case may
be, the Committee by seeking evidence by
obtaining--
(a)(i) the matriculation or equivalent
certificates, if available; and in the absence
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/478/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/07/2025
undefined
whereof;
(ii) the date of birth certificate from the
school (other than a play school) first
attended; and in the absence whereof;
(iii) the birth certificate given by a
corporation or a municipal authority or a
panchayat;
(b) and only in the absence of either (i), (ii) or
(iii) of clause (a) above, the medical opinion
will be sought from a duly constituted
Medical Board, which will declare the age of
the juvenile or child. In case exact
assessment of the age cannot be done, the
Court or the Board or, as the case may be,
the Committee, for the reasons to be
recorded by them, may, if considered
necessary, give benefit to the child or
juvenile by considering his/her age on lower
side within the margin of one year, and,
while passing orders in such case shall, after
taking into consideration such evidence as
may be available, or the medical opinion, as
the case may be, record a finding in respect
of his age and either of the evidence specified
in any of the clauses (a)(i), (ii), (iii) or in the
absence whereof, clause (b) shall be the
conclusive proof of the age as regards such
child or the juvenile in conflict with law.
(4) If the age of a juvenile or child or the
juvenile in conflict with law is found to be
below 18 years on the date of offence, on the
basis of any of the conclusive proof specified
in sub-rule (3), the court or the Board or as
the case may be the Committee shall in
writing pass an order stating the age and
declaring the status of juvenility or
otherwise, for the purpose of the Act and
these Rules and a copy of the order shall be
given to such juvenile or the person
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/478/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/07/2025
undefined
concerned.
(5) Save and except where, further inquiry
or otherwise is required, inter alia, in terms
of Section 7-A, Section 64 of the Act and
these Rules, no further inquiry shall be
conducted by the court or the Board after
examining and obtaining the certificate or
any other documentary proof referred to in
sub-rule (3) of this Rule.
(6) The provisions contained in this Rule
shall also apply to those disposed of cases,
where the status of juvenility has not been
determined in accordance with the
provisions contained in sub-rule (3) and the
Act, requiring dispensation of the sentence
under the Act for passing appropriate order
in the interest of the juvenile in conflict with
law."
11. In Hari Ram vs. State of Rajasthan and
Anr., (2009) 13 SCC 211, it was observed:
"49. The effect of the proviso to Section 7-A
introduced by the amending Act makes it
clear that the claim of juvenility may be
raised before any court which shall be
recognised at any stage, even after final
disposal of the case, and such claim shall be
determined in terms of the provisions
contained in the Act and the Rules made
thereunder which includes the definition of
"juvenile" in Sections 2(k) and 2(l) of the Act
even if the juvenile had ceased to be so on or
before the date of commencement of the Act.
(emphasis supplied)
50. The said intention of the legislature
was reinforced by the amendment effected by
the said amending Act to Section 20 by
introduction of the proviso and the
Explanation thereto, wherein also it has been
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/478/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/07/2025
undefined
clearly indicated that in any pending case in
any court the determination of juvenility of
such a juvenile has to be in terms of Section
2(l) even if the juvenile ceases to be so "on or
before the date of commencement of this Act"
and it was also indicated that the provisions
of the Act would apply as if the said
provisions had been in force for all purposes
and at all material times when the alleged
offence was committed.
(emphasis supplied)
51. Apart from the aforesaid provisions of
the 2000 Act, as amended, and the Juvenile
Justice Rules, 2007, Rule 98 thereof has to
be read in tandem with Section 20 of the
Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, as amended by
the Amendment Act, 2006, which provides
that even in disposed of cases of juveniles in
conflict with law, the State Government or
the Board could, either suo motu or on an
application made for the purpose, review the
case of a juvenile, determine the juvenility
and pass an appropriate order under Section
64 of the Act for the immediate release of the
juvenile whose period of detention had
exceeded the maximum period provided in
Section 15 of the Act i.e. 3 years.
58. Of the two main questions decided in
Pratap Singh case [(2005) 3 SCC 551: 2005
SCC (Cri) 742], one point is now well
established that the juvenility of a person in
conflict with law has to be reckoned from the
date of the incident and not from the date on
which cognizance was taken by the
Magistrate. The effect of the other part of the
decision was, however, neutralised by virtue
of the amendments to the Juvenile Justice
Act, 2000, by Act 33 of 2006, whereunder
the provisions of the Act were also made
applicable to juveniles who had not
completed eighteen years of age on the date
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/478/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/07/2025
undefined
of commission of the offence.
59. The law as now crystallised on a
conjoint reading of Sections 2(k), 2(l), 7-A, 20
and 49 read with Rules 12 and 98, places
beyond all doubt that all persons who were
below the age of 18 years on the date of
commission of the offence even prior to 1-4-
2001, would be treated as juveniles, even if
the claim of juvenility was raised after they
had attained the age of 18 years on or before
the date of commencement of the Act and
were undergoing sentence upon being
convicted."
12. The above view was reiterated by a
bench of three Judges in Abuzar Hossain
alias Gulam Hossain vs. State of West
Bengal, (2012) 10 SCC 489, as follows:-
"39.1. A claim of juvenility may be
raised at any stage even after the final
disposal of the case. It may be raised for the
first time before this Court as well after the
final disposal of the case. The delay in
raising the claim of juvenility cannot be a
ground for rejection of such claim. The claim
of juvenility can be raised in appeal even if
not pressed before the trial court and can be
raised for the first time before this Court
though not pressed before the trial court and
in the appeal court.
39.2. For making a claim with regard to
juvenility after conviction, the claimant must
produce some material which may prima
facie satisfy the court that an inquiry into
the claim of juvenility is necessary. Initial
burden has to be discharged by the person
who claims juvenility.
39.3. As to what materials would prima facie
satisfy the court and/or are sufficient for
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/478/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/07/2025
undefined
discharging the initial burden cannot be
catalogued nor can it be laid down as to
what weight should be given to a specific
piece of evidence which may be sufficient to
raise presumption of juvenility but the
documents referred to in Rules 12(3)(a)(i) to
(iii) shall definitely be sufficient for prima
facie satisfaction of the court about the age
of the delinquent necessitating further
enquiry under Rule 12. The statement
recorded under Section 313 of the Code is
too tentative and may not by itself be
sufficient ordinarily to justify or reject the
claim of juvenility. The credibility and/or
acceptability of the documents like the
school leaving certificate or the voters' list,
etc. obtained after conviction would depend
on the facts and circumstances of each case
and no hard-and-fast rule can be prescribed
that they must be prima facie accepted or
rejected. In Akbar Sheikh (2009) 7 SCC 415 :
(2009) 3 SCC (Cri) 431 and Pawan (2009) 15
SCC 259 : (2010) 2 SCC (Cri) 522 these
documents were not found prima facie
credible while in Jitendra Singh (2010) 13
SCC 523 : (2011) 1 SCC (Cri) 857 the
documents viz. school leaving certificate,
marksheet and the medical report were
treated sufficient for directing an inquiry and
verification of the appellant's age. If such
documents prima facie inspire confidence of
the court, the court may act upon such
documents for the purposes of Section 7-A
and order an enquiry for determination of
the age of the delinquent.
39.4. An affidavit of the claimant or any of
the parents or a sibling or a relative in
support of the claim of juvenility raised for
the first time in appeal or revision or before
this Court during the pendency of the matter
or after disposal of the case shall not be
sufficient justifying an enquiry to determine
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/478/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/07/2025
undefined
the age of such person unless the
circumstances of the case are so glaring that
satisfy the judicial conscience of the court to
order an enquiry into determination of the
age of the delinquent.
39.5. The court where the plea of juvenility is
raised for the first time should always be
guided by the objectives of the 2000 Act and
be alive to the position that the beneficent
and salutary provisions contained in the
2000 Act are not defeated by the hyper
technical approach and the persons who are
entitled to get benefits of the 2000 Act get
such benefits. The courts should not be
unnecessarily influenced by any general
impression that in schools the
parents/guardians understate the age of
their wards by one or two years for future
benefits or that age determination by medical
examination is not very precise. The matter
should be considered prima facie on the
touchstone of preponderance of probability.
39.6. Claim of juvenility lacking in credibility
or frivolous claim of juvenility or patently
absurd or inherently improbable claim of
juvenility must be rejected by the court at
the threshold whenever raised.
13. Again, in Union of India vs. Ex-GNR
Ajeet Singh, (2013) 4 SCC 186, it was held:-
"19. The provisions of the JJ Act have been
interpreted by this Court time and again,
and it has been clearly explained that raising
the age of "juvenile" to 18 years from 16
years would apply retrospectively. It is also
clear that the plea of juvenility can be raised
at any time, even after the relevant
judgment/order has attained finality and
even if no such plea had been raised earlier.
Furthermore, it is the date of the commission
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/478/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/07/2025
undefined
of the offence, and not the date of taking
cognizance or of framing of charges or of the
conviction, that is to be taken into
consideration. Moreover, where the plea of
juvenility has not been raised at the initial
stage of trial and has been taken only on the
appellate stage, this Court has consistently
maintained the conviction, but has set aside
the sentence.
(See Jayendra v. State of U.P. [(1981) 4 SCC
149 : 1981 SCC (Cri) 809 : AIR 1982 SC
685], Gopinath Ghosh v. State of W.B. [1984
Supp SCC 228 : 1984 SCC (Cri) 478 : AIR
1984 SC 237], Bhoop Ram v. State of U.P.
[(1989) 3 SCC 1 : 1989 SCC (Cri) 486 : AIR
1989 SC 1329] , Umesh Singh v. State of
Bihar [(2000) 6 SCC 89 : 2000 SCC (Cri)
1026 : AIR 2000 SC 2111], Akbar Sheikh v.
State of W.B. [(2009) 7 SCC 415 : (2009) 3
SCC (Cri) 431], Hari Ram v. State of
Rajasthan [(2009) 13 SCC 211 : (2010) 1
SCC (Cri) 987], Babla v. State of
Uttarakhand [(2012) 8 SCC 800 : (2012) 3
SCC (Cri) 1067] and Abuzar Hossain v. State
of W.B. [(2012) 10 SCC 489.
14. Reference may also be made to
Jintendra Singh alias Babboo Singh and Anr.
vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2013) 11 SCC
193 laying down as follows:
"80. The settled legal position, therefore, is
that in all such cases where the accused was
above 16 years but below 18 years of age on
the date of occurrence, the proceedings
pending in the court concerned will continue
and be taken to their logical end except that
the court upon finding the juvenile guilty
would not pass an order of sentence against
him. Instead he shall be referred to the
Board for appropriate orders under the 2000
Act. Applying that proposition to the case at
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/478/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/07/2025
undefined
hand the trial court and the High Court
could and indeed were legally required to
record a finding as to the guilt or otherwise
of the appellant. All that the courts could not
have done was to pass an order of sentence,
for which purpose, they ought to have
referred the case to the Juvenile Justice
Board.
81. The matter can be examined from
another angle. Section 7-A(2) of the Act
prescribes the procedure to be followed when
a claim of juvenility is made before any
court. Section 7-A(2) is as under:
"7-A. Procedure to be followed when claim of
juvenility is raised before any court.--
(1) ***
(2) If the court finds a person to be a
juvenile on the date of commission of the
offence under sub-section (1), it shall
forward the juvenile to the Board for passing
appropriate order, and the sentence if any,
passed by a court shall be deemed to have
no effect."
82. A careful reading of the above would
show that although a claim of juvenility can
be raised by a person at any stage and before
any court, upon such court finding the
person to be a juvenile on the date of the
commission of the offence, it has to forward
the juvenile to the Board for passing
appropriate orders and the sentence, if any,
passed shall be deemed to have (sic no)
effect. There is no provision suggesting, leave
alone making it obligatory for the court
before whom the claim for juvenility is made,
to set aside the conviction of the juvenile on
the ground that on the date of commission of
the offence he was a juvenile, and hence not
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/478/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/07/2025
undefined
triable by an ordinary criminal court.
Applying the maxim expressio unius est
exclusio alterius, it would be reasonable to
hold that the law insofar as it requires a
reference to be made to the Board excludes
by necessary implication any intention on
the part of the legislature requiring the
courts to set aside the conviction recorded by
the lower court. Parliament, it appears, was
content with setting aside the sentence of
imprisonment awarded to the juvenile and
making of a reference to the Board without
specifically or by implication requiring the
court concerned to alter or set aside the
conviction. That perhaps is the reason why
this Court has in several decisions simply set
aside the sentence awarded to the juvenile
without interfering with the conviction
recorded by the court concerned and thereby
complied with the mandate of Section 7-A(2)
of the Act."
9. On careful observation of the provision and the judgments
referred herein, this Court has to now examine the effect of
the judgment of the conviction and also to examine the
evidence on record whether the conviction would sustain
against the appellant no.4 who was juvenile on the date of
the commission of offence.
10. The legal position with regard to the offence under Section
3(1)(x) of the Atrocities Act has been dealt with in the cases
of Swaran Singh v. State, (2008) 8 SCC 435 and Hitesh
Verma v. State of Uttarakhand & Anr., (2020) 10 SCC 710.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/478/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/07/2025
undefined
Section 3(1)(x) of the Atrocities Act, which has stood prior
to the amendment vide effect 26.1.2016, reads as under:-
"(x) intentionally insults or intimidates with
intent to humiliate a member of a Schedule
Caste or a Scheduled Tribe in any place
within public view;"
11. In the case of Hitesh Verma (supra), it has been observed
as under:-
"14. Another key ingredient of the provision
is insult or intimidation in "any place within
public view". What is to be regarded as "place
in public view" had come up for
consideration before this Court in the
judgment reported as Swaran Singh v. State,
(2008) 8 SCC 435 through Standing Counsel
& Ors. The Court had drawn distinction
between the expression "public place" and
"in any place within public view". It was held
that if an offence is committed outside the
building e.g. in a lawn outside a house, and
the lawn can be seen by someone from the
road or lane outside the boundary wall, then
the lawn would certainly be a place within
the public view. On the contrary, if the
remark is made inside a building, but some
members of the public are there (not merely
relatives or friends) then it would not be an
offence since it is not in the public view."
12. Here in this case, the place of offence has been described
under Panchnama Exh.31. PW10 and PW11 are the panch
witnesses who have been examined. Both are neighbours of
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/478/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/07/2025
undefined
the complainant and PW3 - Savdhanbhai and of the same
community. The place of offence was shown by PW4, the
complainant - Surajben Savdhanbhai. As noted in Exh.31,
the place of offence is the backyard of the residential house
of the complainant and it is noted that from the backyard,
she was dragged in the Veranda of the house. The house
falls on the road of Harijanvas.
13. In the case of Swaran Singh (supra), the distinction has
been made between the expression "public place" and "in
any place within public view". It was held that if the offence
is committed outside the building i.e. in a lawn outside the
house and the lawn can be seen by someone from the road
outside the boundary wall, then, the lawn would certainly
be a place within the public view.
14. Here in the present case, the place of offence was shown by
the complainant as the backyard covered by net. From the
backyard, the complainant was dragged in the Veranda.
The further description shows that the first house in the
Harijanvas is of the complainant, which is having a north
facing door. Initially, there is Veranda, then a room
followed by a kitchen and backyard covered with net. It is
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/478/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/07/2025
undefined
also noted that there is also an access from the backyard of
the house. It also further describes that near the Veranda,
there is 3 ft. Ota. After the steps on the northern side,
there is 8 ft. RCC road of Harijanvas with east-west
direction. Leaving that road on the northern side, there is
an open area. Thereafter, there is a road towards
Thakorvas.
15. It is further described that on the southern side after the
complainant's house, there is a wall of the room belonging
to accused - Amaraji Nathaji Thakore. The room was found
in closed condition.
16. The injured complainant - PW4 - Surajben Savdhanbhai
Parmar stated in her deposition that on 24.5.2004 at about
10:00 p.m., while she was in the kitchen, at that time,
accused no.1 - Amaraji and accused no.2, his son -
Yogeshbhai both came in the kitchen and dragged her out
in the Veranda of her house and at that time, they had
beaten her. The place, as could be noted, is the veranda of
the house, which contains a door adjoined with 3 ft. Ota.
The evidence of the witnesses would be required to be
examined to find out whether the act alleged was in "a
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/478/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/07/2025
undefined
place within public view", as expressed in Section 3(1)(x) of
the Atrocities Act.
17. Learned Senior Advocate Mr. Panchal has submitted that
the witnesses who have been examined in the present
matter are all relatives and no independent person from
Thakorvas has been examined, which is near to the
Harijanvas road. Learned Senior Advocate Mr. Panchal has
drawn attention of the Court that there was no person from
the public who could independently state of any such
incident to have taken place.
18. The accused have examined DW1 - Amarsinh Bhalaji
Thaker. He has stated of knowing PW3, PW4, PW7, PW8
and all the four accused since they are all residing in the
Village. DW1 has affirmed of dispute regarding the money
between the complainant and the accused. The witness-
DW1 stated that the Panch of the Village had gathered,
where PW3 - Savdhanbhai had informed the Panch that he
was demanding money from the accused, while the
accused have denied the same. DW1 stated that the Panch
had decided to give Rs.10,000/- to the complainant and
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/478/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/07/2025
undefined
Savdhanbhai, the money which was borrowed by the
accused - Amaraji Nathaji. DW1 stated that such a
decision was taken to see that in future, no such dispute
arise between the parties. DW1 stated that the money was
given by the accused. Before the Panch, there were
Matarbhai Dhodabhai Parmar, Chamanji Somaji Thakore,
Chunilal Bhalaji Thakore and brother-in-law of PW3. In the
cross-examination, DW1 stated that he has no personal
information about the incident and he had come to know
that the incident had taken place regarding some monetary
transaction. He was not present during the payment of
money, nor any transaction has taken place in his
presence. He affirmed that the accused belonged to his
community and further stated that no writing was
executed in presence of the Panchas for the payment. From
the evidence, the fact that there was dispute regarding
money gets proved.
19. The incident had taken place on 24.5.2004, while the
complaint at Exh.19 came to be registered on 29.5.2004.
There is a delay of almost five days. The complainant, while
explaining the delay in filing the FIR, stated that after her
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/478/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/07/2025
undefined
treatment at Sola Hospital, on the next day, the village
representatives had instructed her not to file any case and
asked her to settle the matter. The complainant in Exh.19
stated that thus, she had not filed any case, inspite of that,
since all the four accused often gave threats to beat them,
were publicly insulting them and therefore, on that day,
she had come to file the complaint. The fact of settlement
gets corroborated by the evidence of DW1. The evidence of
the complainant confirms that something had transpired
before the Village Panch. Delay in filing FIR looses the
advantage of spontaneity since it has the risk of
exaggerated account or concocted story as a result of
consultation and deliberation. Promptness in lodging the
FIR is an assurance regarding the truth of the informant
version.
20. In the case of Jai Prakash v. State of Bihar, (2012) 4 SCC
379, it has been observed as under:-
"12. The FIR in criminal case is a vital and
valuable piece of evidence though may not be
substantive piece of evidence. The object of
insisting upon prompt lodging of the FIR in
respect of the commission of an offence is to
obtain early information regarding the
circumstances in which the crime was
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/478/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/07/2025
undefined
committed, the names of actual culprits and
the part played by them as well as the names
of eye- witnesses present at the scene of
occurrence. If there is a delay in lodging the
FIR, it looses the advantage of spontaneity,
danger creeps in of the introduction of
coloured version, exaggerated account or
concocted story as a result of large number
of consultations/deliberations. Undoubtedly,
the promptness in lodging the FIR is an
assurance regarding truth of the informant's
version. A promptly lodged FIR reflects the
first hand account of what has actually
happened, and who was responsible for the
offence in question."
21. The aspect, which becomes noticeable by the evidence of
PW9 - Vishnubhai Prajapati who is a PSO that on
29.5.2004 at Sarkhej Police Station, the complainant had
gone to give her complaint. The complainant had informed
that accused no.1 - Thakarji Amaraji of their Village had
borrowed Rs.10,000/- from her mother-in-law - Ramiben
during his daughter's marriage and as they came to know
that he has received money on selling his land and
therefore, they had gone demanding the money. According
to the complainant, accused no.1 got angry and he did not
pay the money and therefore, they returned back.
Thereafter, in the evening at 22 hrs., Amaraji (A1), Yogeshji
(A2) came with stick and dragged the complainant -
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/478/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/07/2025
undefined
Surajben from the house and brought her out and gave
blows with stick, at that time, Ketanji (A4) and Dhudaji
(A3) gave her kick and fist blows and since she started
shouting, the witnesses came there. Before the PSO, it was
stated that the accused had abused alleging about their
caste stating that "at present, they are leaving from there
and if they are found alone somewhere, they would be
killed." PSO took the complaint accordingly and gave the
further investigation to the Police Sub-Inspector - Shri
Vyas. The witness identified Exh.19, the complaint, who
according to him, was written down, as stated by the
complainant. Exh.29 is the report produced on record to
support the say that the complaint was handed over to
Shri Vyas. PSO. In the cross-examination, the witness has
affirmed of having not inquired about the delay in giving
the complaint and he also affirmed that after hearing the
complainant, he found it to be of serious nature.
22. The fact of using abusive words and insulting them by
their caste got disclosed in the complaint itself. However,
the witness - PSO had not forwarded the further
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/478/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/07/2025
undefined
investigation to the Deputy Superintendent of Police as
mandated under the Atrocities Act.
23. Here the complaint filed before the PSO on 29.5.2004 was
under Sections 323, 452, 504, 506(2) and 114 of the IPC
and section 3(1)(x) of the Atrocities Act. The complaint was
both under IPC as well as under the Atrocities Act. PSO -
PW9 handed over the investigation to PW12 - Bhargav
Jayantilal Vyas who was serving as Probationer Police
officer at Sarkhej Police Station. During the period of his
investigation, he had drawn the Panchnama of the place of
offence at Exh.31. The Panchnama was drawn on
29.5.2004 between 16.45 hrs. to 17.15 hrs. PW1 -
Probationer PSI after the Panchnama, made inquiry about
the accused on the very same day, and in his deposition,
he states that though he found complaint serious in
nature, he had not informed in writing to his superior
officer - Deputy Commissioner of Police, Assistant Police
Commissioner, and has voluntarily stated that PSO after
receiving the complaint had informed the Superintendent
of Police and Deputy Superintendent of Police by wireless
message. He affirmed that the investigation under the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/478/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/07/2025
undefined
Atrocities Act can be conducted by the Deputy Police
Commissioner and Assistant Police Commissioner.
24. The Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Rules, 1995 came in force on 31.3.1995. Rule 7
lays down about the investigating officer who is authorized
to conduct the investigation. Rule 7 is reproduced
hereunder:-
"7. Investigating Officer.-
(1) An offence committed under the Act
shall be investigated by a police officer not
below the rank of a Deputy Superintendent
of Police. The investigating officer shall be
appointed by the State Government,
Director-General of Police, Superintendent of
Police after taking into account his past
experience, sense of ability and justice to
perceive the implications of the case and
investigate it along with right lines within the
shortest possible time.
(2) The investigating officer so appointed
under sub-rule (1) shall complete the
investigation on top priority and submit the
report to the Superintendent of Police, who
in turn will immediately forward the report to
the Director-General of Police or
Commissioner of Police of the State
Government, and the officer- in-charge of
the concerned police station shall file the
charge-sheet in the Special Court or the
Exclusive Special Court within a period of
sixty days (the period is inclusive of
investigation and filing of charge- sheet.).
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/478/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/07/2025
undefined
(2A) The delay, if any, in investigation or
filing of charge-sheet in accordance with
sub-rule (2) shall be explained in writing by
the investigating officer
(3) The Secretary, Home Department and
the Secretary, Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes Development Department
(the name of the Department may vary from
State to State) to the State Government or
Union Territory Administration, Director of
Prosecution, the officer-in-charge of
Prosecution and the Director-General of
Police or Commissioner of Police in-charge of
the concerned State or Union Territory shall
review by the end of every quarter the
position of all investigations done by the
investigating officer."
25. In the case of State of Madhya Pradesh v. Chunnilal @
Chunni Singh, reported in 2010 (1) GLR 260, it has been
observed in Paragraph 6 as under:-
"6. By virtue of its enabling power it is the
duty and responsibility of the State
Government to issue notification conferring
power of investigation of cases by notified
police officer not below the rank of Deputy
Superintendent of Police for different areas
in the police districts. Rule 7 of the Rules
provided rank of investigation officer to be
not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent
of Police. An officer below that rank cannot
act as investigating officer. The provisions
in Section 9 of the Act, Rule 7 of the Rules
and Section 4 of the Code when jointly read
lead to an irresistible conclusion that the
investigation to an offence under Section 3 of
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/478/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/07/2025
undefined
the Act by an officer not appointed in terms
of Rule 7 is illegal and invalid. But when the
offence complained are both under
the IPC and any of the offence enumerated
in Section 3 of the Act the investigation
which is being made by a competent police
officer in accordance with the provisions of
the Code cannot be quashed for non
investigation of the offence under Section
3 of the Act by a competent police officer. In
such a situation the proceedings shall
proceed in appropriate Court for the offences
punishable under the IPC notwithstanding
investigation and the charge sheet being not
liable to be accepted only in respect of
offence under Section 3 of the Act for taking
cognizance of that offence."
26. Here PW12 - Probation Police Sub-Inspector - Shri Vyas,
after conducting the Panchnama at Exh.31 on 29.5.2004,
states that though he had found the offence to be of
serious nature, he had not informed the superior officer
himself and clarified that the PSO had given a wireless
message to the Superintendent of Police and the Deputy
Superintendent of Police. However, the PSO himself does
not state of any such wireless message. Whether the
drawing of Panchnama at the place of offence becomes
prejudicial to the accused is required to be examined, since
the investigation of the place of offence is not conducted by
the authority who was empowered and duty bound to
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/478/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/07/2025
undefined
investigate the place of offence under the Atrocities Act and
more specifically, when the offence was registered under
Section 3(1)(x) of the Atrocities Act, it would have been
incumbent on the authorized Deputy Superintendent of
Police to investigate the place of offence and further such
Panchnama is required to be drawn in presence of
independent and reliable Panchas. Prior to calling any
person as Panch for the place of offence, the Investigating
Officer is required to examine the credibility of the Panch.
Independent and respectable witnesses from the locality
are required to be called. The Panchas of Exh.31,
Panchnama of place of offence are Punambhai Ishvarbhai
Parmar and Ganpatbhai Modibhai Parmar, both are from
the same community and neighbour of the complainant
and the witnesses. Place of offence becomes vital since
under Section 3(1)(x) of the Atrocities Act, the analysis of
evidence would be to examine of intentional insult or
intimidation with intent to humiliate a member of
Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe in any place within
public view. Rule 7, therefore, mandates that the Deputy
Superintendent of Police should be an experienced person
with the sense of ability and justice to perceive the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/478/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/07/2025
undefined
implications of the case and investigate along with right
line within the shortest possible time. Rule 7, therefore,
clearly mandates that such investigation should be by the
person not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of
Police. In relation thereof, the delay in filing the complaint
also becomes fatal, since the investigation is to be
completed within shortest possible time. Since the part of
the investigation of Exh.31 was done by the Probationer
Police Sub-Inspector and though he had the knowledge
that the offence was serious in nature, he had not cared to
inform the superior officer in the rank of Police
Commissioner or Assistant Police Commissioner. If the
Probationer PSO evidence is to be believed, and when the
Probationer Police Sub-Inspector had the knowledge of a
wireless message to the Deputy Superintendent of Police by
PSO, then he ought not to have investigated the place of
offence, nor should have inquired about the accused on
that day. The Deputy Superintendent of Police - Kantilal
Chavda - PW13 was handed over the investigation on the
next day i.e. 30.5.2004.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/478/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/07/2025
undefined
27. The investigation with the Probationer Officer - PW12 was
only for a day. It cannot be concluded that the
investigation for one day was towards the sections under
IPC.
28. PW9 - PSO had handed over the investigation to PW12 -
Bhargav Jayantilal Vyas who on 29.5.2004 was serving as
a Probationer PSI at Sarkhej Police Station who affirms
that he had received the report of investigation from the
PSO. He visited Jagatpur Village and called two panchas
from nearby area and had drawn Exh.31, the Panchnama
of the place of offence. In the cross-examination, he has
affirmed that he had not asked for any clarification from
the complainant, about the delay in filing the complaint.
Experienced Deputy Superintendent of Police probably
could have investigated on this line and would have
inquired from the Village people - the village Panch about
the meeting and the settlement and could have known
about the actual incident. The Deputy Superintendent of
Police ought to have again drawn the Panchnama of place
of incident and could have overturn the Panchnama
Exh.31. PW12 - PSI stated that he had visited the place of
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/478/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/07/2025
undefined
offence. Rule 6 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled
Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995 refers to the
duties of the Deputy Superintendent of Police on receiving
the information of atrocity committed on the members of
the Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. Rule 6 is
extracted herein, which is about spot inspection by officers.
Rule 6 reads as under:-
"6. Spot inspection by officers.-
(1) Whenever the District Magistrate or the
Sub Divisional Magistrate or any other
Executive Magistrate or any police officer not
below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of
Police receives an information from any
person or upon his own knowledge that an
atrocity has been committed on the members
of the Scheduled Caste or the Scheduled
Tribes within his jurisdiction, he shall
immediately himself visit the place of
occurrence to assess the extent of atrocity,
loss of life, loss and damage to the property
and submit a report forthwith to the State
Government.
(2) The District Magistrate or the Sub-
District Magistrate or any other Executive
Magistrate and the Superintendent of Police/
Deputy Superintendent of Police after
inspecting the place or area shall on the
spot-
(i) draw a list of victims, their family
members and dependents entitled for relief;
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/478/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/07/2025
undefined
(ii) prepare a detailed report of the extent
of atrocity, loss and damage to the property
of the victims;
(iii) order for intensive police patrolling in
the area;
(iv) take effective and necessary steps to
provide protection to the witnesses and other
sympathisers of the victims;
(v) provide immediate relief to the victims."
29. The evidence of the Deputy Superintendent of Police -
Kantilal Laxmanbhai Chavda is at Exh.34 as PW13.
According to his deposition, he was serving as Deputy
Superintendent of Police, SC-ST Cell at Ahmedabad (Rural)
and he received the complaint being CR no.112/04 under
Sections 452, 504, 506(2) of the IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of
the Atrocities Act. He took over the investigation from B.J.
Vyas - PW12 on 30.5.2004. He recorded the statement of
the complainant PW4, her husband PW3, Rashmikaben,
wife of Ramesh Savdhan Sombhai and Gangaben - PW8.
The witnesses stated that the accused nos.1 and 2
produced the stick before the Panchas. He procured the
medical certificate of the complainant and the caste
certificate of the witness - Savdhanbhai Jenabhai. He
stated that the place of offence Panchnama was drawn by
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/478/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/07/2025
undefined
ASO - V.J. Vyas. He identified Exh.25 as the medical
certificate of the complainant from Sola Civil Hospital-
Surajben Savdhanbhai Parmar, and Exh.35 as caste
certificate.
30. In the cross-examination, the Deputy Superintendent of
Police stated that at 09.00 a.m. on 30.5.2004, he received
the charge of the investigation, then he inquired about the
place of offence, he read the complaint and further stated
that on the same day, the PSO had sent the complainant
for treatment. He affirmed that he had not received any
medical certificate of the complainant dated 29.5.2004.
While this witness has denied of complainant's son-
Kundanbhai Savdhanbhai giving an application at the
same Sarkhej Police Station and in connection thereof,
ASI-Laxmanbhai Bababhai, Buckle no.712 filing the
proceedings under Section 151 of the Cr.P.C. against eight
named persons. The Deputy Superintendent of Police has
affirmed that he has taken the statements of only those
people who belonged to community of complainant while
had not recorded any statement of other community
member.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/478/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/07/2025
undefined
31. Here the evidence of this Dy.S.P. witness becomes vital to
the aspect that with the delay the complaint dated
29.5.2004 was filed before the PSO and the PSO forwards
the investigation to Probationer Police Sub-Inspector - Shri
Bhargav Vyas, but Shri Bhargav Vyas has not made any
attempt to procure the medical certificate. The Deputy
Superintendent of Police - PW13 states that the PSO on the
very same day had sent the complainant for medical
treatment, while Exh.25 is dated 26.6.2004. The date does
not get corroborated of the Deputy Superintendent of
Police, if that has to be believed, and, when the complaint
is dated 29.5.2004 then the medical certificate ought to
have been of the same date i.e. 29.5.2004. The Doctor
witness PW6 - Dr. Mahesh Narottamdas Chauhan in the
cross-examination has admitted the fact that in the
certificate Exh.25, there is an overwriting on the month of
the date of examination, but denied the suggestion that
there has been an overwriting on the time noted of
examining the patient. Exh.25 is dated 26.6.2004 and the
Doctor deposes that he had examined the patient on
25.5.2004 at 10.50 hrs., which is noted in the injury
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/478/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/07/2025
undefined
certificate. The important fact is that the Doctor had not
brought the original treatment papers. He had produced
Exh.25 in his deposition and according to his history, he
has examined the patient towards MLC no.521 of 2004 and
the injury which he observed, are noted as under:-
"(1) 3 cm x 1 cm in size bruise on lateral
surface of Rt forearm 80 m above wrist joint,
(2) 3 cm x 1½ cm in size bruise on anterior
surface of Rt forearm on lateral side 7 cm
above the injury no.1, (3) 2 cm x 2 cm in size
bruise on post surface of Rt forearm 5 cm
above the wrist joint."
32. The history before the Doctor was that there was a quarrel
for the money with accused no.1 and on 24.5.2004 at night
at about 10.00 hrs., accused no.1 had come to her house
and had beaten her with the stick. The history does not
suggest of any other accused coming in her house or
accused no.1 and accused no.2 dragging her from inside
her house to the veranda. The patient was conscious and
cooperative so she could have very well informed the name
of all the accused, but had not even suggested that
accused no.2 also had beaten with the stick. According to
the Doctor, the injuries were simple in nature and could
occur with blunt substance like stick. The doctor in his
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/478/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/07/2025
undefined
cross-examination stated that injuries except on the elbow
could be caused by the patient on her own and can also
occur if she get dashed or have fall on hard substance or
get pressed by hard substance.
33. Learned Senior Advocate Mr. Panchal has stated that the
injuries are all bruises and states that there is no rupture
of the skin, nor was any bleeding.
34. "Contusions (bruises)", as noted in the book of the
Essentials of Forensic Medicine and Toxicology by Dr. K.S.
Narayan Reddy, Sixteenth Edition, 1997 on Page-140,
read as under:-
"A contusion is an effusion of blood into the
tissues, due to the rupture of blood vessels,
caused by blunt trauma. Contusions may be
present not only in skin, but also in internal
organs, such as the lung, heart, brain and
muscles. The bruise is usually situated in
the corium and subcutaneous tissues, often
in the fat layer. In contusion, there is a
painful swelling, and crushing or tearing of
the subcutaneous tissues usually without
destruction of the skin.
35. The complainant - PW4 - Surajben in the deposition had
stated that she had given the complaint on 24.5.2004. It
appears that there is some tying error in the initial part of
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/478/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/07/2025
undefined
the deposition as the later part clarifies that the complaint
was filed on 29.05.2004. She stated in her deposition at
Exh.18 as PW4 that her mother-in-law had given money to
accused no.1-Amarabhai in her presence, which was
Rs.10,000/- for the marriage of Amarabhai's daughter.
They were often demanding the money back. Her mother-
in-law too had demanded the money, but whenever her
mother-in-law would go for the money, accused no.1 would
assure payment of money after selling the land. She has
further stated that during the lifetime of her mother-in-law,
Amarabhai had never returned the money. Two years after
the death of her mother-in-law, they had gone asking for
money, at that time, Amarabhai (A1), abusing her husband
Savdhanji by caste, threatened to kill him, if he asked for
money. The complainant-witness stated that Amarabhai's
son- Yogeshbhai told her husband that if he would come
asking for money, he would be burnt alive.
36. This evidence of the complainant does not get
corroboration from the evidence Exh.40, which is
proceeding under Sections 107 and 157 of Cr.P.C. filed by
the son of the complainant-Kundanbhai Savdhanbhai.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/478/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/07/2025
undefined
This fact is also not corroborated by Savdhanbhai for
whom it is alleged that Amarabhai (A1) and Yogeshbhai
(A2) had threatened him. This evidence is not supported
even by the evidence of another son of the complainant-
Mahesh Savdhanbhai at Exh. 23 as PW5 and further, the
complainant is not the eye-witness to this allegation as she
has not stated that she had joined her husband when he
had gone to Amarabhai (A1) asking for money. So this part
of her evidence cannot be believed.
37. PW3-Savdhanbhai Jenabhai Parmar stated that on
24.05.2004, when he had again asked for the money, at
that time, Amarabhai (A1) had come near his house in a
completely inebriated state and started hurling abuses and
abusing by his caste, asked him to do what he wants.
Accused no.1 returned to his house and as per the witness,
again accused no.1 came back with his brother and others
who were, his son Yogesh, Dholaji Nathaji, the elder
brother and brother's son - the juvenile. The witness stated
that Amraji (A1) and Yogesh (A2) entered into his house, he
was in the first room and at the rear side of his house, his
wife was cleaning utensils. Accused no.1 (Amaraji) and
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/478/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/07/2025
undefined
accused no.2 (Yogeshji) held his wife from her hair and
dragged her outside the house and started beating his wife
with a stick. Witness-PW3 stated that accused no.1 had
beaten his wife with the stick on the waist, she was having
pain there. Accused no.2 had beaten his wife on the left
hand, while other accused- Dholaji Nathaji and Ketanji
Darshathji had given him kick and fist blows. According to
him, at that time, they were at the front side of the house
and when he raised alarm, his son-Mahesh and wife-
Rashmi came from the upper floor and his neighbour
Ashokbhai too had come there. The witness further stated
that he tried to intervene to rescue his wife from the
beatings, but they had given him kick and fist blows, at
that time, other people from the vicinity came and rescued
them. However, while going, the accused abusing with his
caste, had threatened to kill him if he asked for money and
burn putting him inside the house. The witness states that
since the wife was injured, they had gone to Sola Hospital
for treatment. This evidence with regard to the injury to the
complainant does not find corroboration from the medical
certificate-Exh.25. The husband of the injured-PW3 stated
that his wife sustained injury on the waist and she was
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/478/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/07/2025
undefined
having pain, while no such injury is reflected in Exh.25.
The pain is shown to be at the right arm. The witness also
states that accused no.2 had beaten the complainant on
the left hand while no injury is noted on the left hand of
the complainant in Exh.25.
38. The witness PW-3 also becomes doubtful and unreliable
since no complaint has been filed on the date of the
incident, i.e. 24.5.2004, though he states that he had gone
for the treatment. The witness evidence becomes unreliable
even on the fact that he is the witness in the complaint
Exh.40 filed on 26.5.2004, where the complainant does not
state of abuse or beatings. Even if the statement of the
injured complainant is to be believed, that they had gone
the next morning for treatment at Sola Civil Hospital, then,
the complaint was required to be filed on 25.5.2004.
According to PW3, he had even sent the complaint to the
authorities - Collector, Home Department, Sarkhej Police
Station and Social Welfare Department by Registered Post
A.D. No such acknowledgment receipt had been produced.
39. If such a complaint was received by the Police Station,
such fact would have been revealed by the PSO of Sarkhej
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/478/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/07/2025
undefined
Police Station-PW9. The clarification, which he gives for the
delay, is that since he had not received any reply from any
of the authority, on 29.05.2004, they had gone personally
to Sarkhej Police Station to give the complaint and at that
time, Surajben was with him and both of them had given
the complaint to the police. It is not the case of the
complainant that PSO denied to register the complaint.
Rule 5 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995 refers to the action in
case of refusal to register the offence. Rule 5 is reproduced
hereunder:-
"5. Information to Police Officer in-charge
of a Police Station.
(1) Every information relating to the
commission of an offence under the
Act, if given orally to an officer in-
charge of a police station shall be
reduced to writing by him or under his
direction, and be read over to the
informant, and every such information,
whether given in writing or reduced to
writing as aforesaid, shall be signed by
the person giving it, and the substance
thereof shall be entered in a book to be
maintained by that police station.
(2) A copy of the information as so
recorded under sub-rule (1) above shall
be given forthwith, free of cost, to the
informant.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/478/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/07/2025
undefined
(3) Any person aggrieved by a refusal
on the part of an officer in-charge of a
police station to record the information
referred to in-sub-rule (1) may send the
substance of such information, in
writing and by post, to the
Superintendent of Police concerned
who after investigation either by
himself or by a police officer not below
the rank of Deputy Superintendent of
Police, shall make an order in writing
to the officer in-charge of the concerned
police station to enter the substance of
that information to be entered in the
book to be maintained by that police
station."
40. As argued by learned Senior Advocate Mr. J.M. Panchal,
what has been addressed in the application to the
authorities has not been known to the accused, thus, had
no chance to contradict the same. In the cross-
examination, the witness PW3 had stated about the
monetary transaction with his mother and they had often
asked for return of money from accused no.1.
41. PW3 affirmed about the doors on the rear and front of the
house. The incident, which occurred on 24.05.2004, was
for 5-10 minutes and has also stated that if such incident
happens and if someone raises an alarm, then the people
staying opposite the house and in nearby vicinity would
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/478/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/07/2025
undefined
certainly know about it. He has affirmed that he has not
stated in his statement before the police that the accused
while leaving the place, had abused him by his caste and
had threatened to kill him if he would demand the money
and would burn the house putting him therein. He states
that when his mother had demanded the money, the
accused had informed that he would pay back after selling
the land.
42. Very interesting to note that even this witness PW3
affirmed of his son Kundan giving a complaint at Sarkhej
Police Station, but denied of any statement recorded by the
Police Station in connection with the complaint. The
witness has not brought on record the medical certificate of
his treatment, though he affirms of taking such treatment
for the incident as stated to have occurred at 10 O'clock
night on 25.04.2005.
43. As referred, Exh.40 is the complaint by the son-
Kundanbhai against eight members of the accused family
which is dated 26.04.2005 at Sarkhej Police Station. DW1-
Amarsingh Rathore at Exh.37 and DW2 Chamanji Somaji
at Exh.38 had stated about the settlement by the panchas
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/478/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/07/2025
undefined
in connection with the monetary transaction, while DW3-
Laxmansinh Rana has given the deposition with regard to
the complaint given by Kundan Savdhanbhai, where the
witness DW3 has specifically stated that Kundan has not
referred to any beatings on 24.07.2005, nor had he stated
in the complaint of any casteist slurs.
44. PW5 is the son of the PW3-Savdhanbhai, while PW7
Ashokbhai is the neighbour and a relative from
matrimonial side of the complainant and PW8-Gangaben
Parmar is the sister-in-law of the complaint, who is the
wife of younger brother of Savdhanbhai. Witnesses are
related to the complainant, they are interested witnesses.
45. The deposition of PW8-Gangaben refers to the date as 20
and year as 2004, the witness does not recollect the
month. According to the witness, there was a quarrel
between Savdhanbhai and the accused no.1-Amarabhai
and his son-accused no.2-Yogesh. At the time of incident,
she was ill, so was sleeping. After hearing the shouts, she
came out and when she reached the place of offence, she
came to know that Amaraji (A1) and Yogeshji (A2) had
beaten the complainant with a stick, who had sustained
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/478/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/07/2025
undefined
injury on the right side of the body. According to this
witness, her sister-in-law (PW4) and the accused were
insulting each other. She does not remember of any
incident, in which, the brother-in-law Savdhanbhai had
sustained grievous injuries. She does not know the quarrel,
she does not remember of any stick in the hands of the
accused. The witness does state of any casteist remarks by
any of the accused. Since she did not support the
prosecution case, she was declared hostile.
46. The son-Maheshbhai Savdhanbhai Parmar is not the eye
witness to the incident who was examined as PW5. He was
on the first floor of his house. He came down with his wife
and said that his mother was crying and according to his
evidence, his mother on her right leg and right arm had
received injury, but had not given any further description
of other injury in the evidence. He further states that his
father had informed him that the accused had given him a
push. However, the said fact does not get corroborated by
the evidence of the father who alleges of receiving kick and
fist blows. There is no medical evidence to support the say
of the father.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/478/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/07/2025
undefined
47. The abusive language against the caste of the witness were
alleged to have been uttered by all the accused while
leaving the house, while as per PW5 son, he does not even
remember the name of the person who had given beatings
to his father. However, he states that the another person
was Dolaji Nathaji (A3). As per PW5, the casteist slurs were
spoken in his presence. The evidence of witnesses do not
corroborate with each other. The statement of PW3 does
not find corroboration with PW5. Another son Kundan had
not stated of such incident before Sarkhej Police Station on
25.07.2004. While on 29.05.2004 by the complaint Exh.19,
all such new facts are incorporated after delay of five days.
Delay while giving such a complaint looses the value of the
FIR Itself. Delay in filing the FIR often results in
embellishment as well as introduction of a colored version
or exaggerated story and the FIR looses it value and
authenticity. PW8 does not support the version of PW3 and
she has been declared hostile. It is not specifically alleged
against individual accused of passing casteist remarks.
48. PW7-Ashok Somabhai Parmar is not the eye-witness.
However, according to him at about 9 to 10 O'clock at
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/478/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/07/2025
undefined
night on 24.05.2004, he states that there was verbal
quarrel at the house of Savdhanbhai. Therefore, he reached
there and saw Surajben had received injury on the right
hand and right leg. The witness states that accused no.1
and the accused no.2 had beaten her with the stick. The
witness also states of casteist remarks and about threat to
kill if they were found alone. The evidentiary value of this
witness is to be examined by the corroborative evidence of
others. Present witness is the relative of complainant.
49. PW4 - the complainant - Surajben Parmar at Exh.18 stated
about the incident on 24.5.2004 that at about 10:00 p.m.,
she was working in the kitchen, at that time, Amaraji (A1)
and Yogeshji (A2) both dragged her from the kitchen to the
veranda (Aanganu), at that time, Amaraji (A1) had beaten
her with the stick on her waist and Yogeshbhai (A2) on the
right hand and leg, gave her pushes and therefore, she
started screaming. She further stated that they started
beating her badly, at that time, Ashokbhai Somabhai and
her son who was on the terrace also came there and others
from the vicinity also had come there, who saved her and
her husband. This evidence of the complainant does not
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/478/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/07/2025
undefined
state about any beatings to the husband. The injury which
had been caused by accused no.1 at the waist with the
stick is nowhere reflected in Exh.25 - the medical evidence.
Further, the complainant herself does not state of any
injury by the accused no.2 with the stick. The injuries
which get reflected in Exh.25 are the one which the Doctor
- PW6 stated that they are simple injuries, which could be
caused by sticks. Hence, the allegation against accused
no.2 of giving pushes on the right hand and leg does not
get corroborated by the evidence of Dr. Mahesh Chauhan
and allegation of beatings with the stick on the waist
attributed to accused no.1 also does not get corroboration
from Exh.25, nor with the evidence of Dr. Mahesh
Chauhan. The certificate Exh.25 does not state of any
injury caused to the complainant by Yogesh (A2). Exh.25 is
about the injury caused by accused no.1 with the stick.
However, the attributed injury to accused no.1 - Amaraji is
not reflected in the document at Exh.25. In order to further
attribute the injuries to accused no.3 - Dhudaji Nathaji,
complainant states that he too had come there and had
given pushes and kick and fist blows and accused no.4-
juvenile was also attributed with the kick and fist blows,
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/478/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/07/2025
undefined
but such injuries do not find place in the medical evidence
Exh.25. The presence of accused nos.3 and 4 at the place
of incident is shown after the complainant's son and
Ashokbhai Somabhai and others had come there, the
complainant does not get the support from the evidence of
her son. The son - Mahesh stated that his mother had
informed him that Amaraji Nathaji (A1) and Yogeshji (A2)
had beaten her with the stick. Deposition does not state of
any injury caused by accused nos.3 and 4 to the mother,
while the father who was there, he informed the son
Maheshbhai that he had received kick and fist blows from
one Ketanji Dashrathji (A4) and another accused whose
name he does not remember.
50. While the evidence of PW7 - Ashokbhai Parmar attributes
the injury to accused nos.1 and 2 to have been caused to
the wife of Savdhanbhai, the complainant on right hand
and right leg, while no such beatings have been attributed
by PW7 to accused nos.3 and 4, while PW7 stated that
accused nos.3 and 4 were abusing them by their caste and
threatening Savdhanbhai to kill him when they would meet
him alone. By further providing the evidence, PW7 stated
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/478/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/07/2025
undefined
that the utterance was by all of them. There is no person
individually named, addressing them by castiest abuse and
threatening them. Accused no.4 is shown to be juvenile
and accused no.3 is shown to be a person who had no eye
visibility during night.
51. The evidence of all the witnesses do not corroborate each
other, they are not consistent, they are uncertain. There
was delay in filing the FIR and Exh.40, complaint by
Kundanbhai Savdhanbhai on 26.5.2004 were the
proceedings under Sections 107 and 151 of the Cr.P.C.
against eight opponents. There are no such allegation of
beatings or giving any casteist slurs. The only fact as was
noted was of verbal quarrel on 24.5.2004 in the evening of
accused no.1 with the father - Savdhanbhai when he had
asked for the money. The complainant son Kundanbhai
states that on that day, the Village people had gathered
and there was settlement and thereafter, again on
25.5.2004, there was verbal quarrel between the applicant
and eight of the opponents as shown in Exh.40 which
includes the present 4 accused. In that matter, the
witnesses cited were the complainant - Kundanbhai
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/478/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/07/2025
undefined
Savdhanbhai himself and father Savdhanji Jenabhai.
Exh.40 thus clarifies that till 25.5.2004, there was no case
of any beatings by the accused or any casteist remarks to
Savdhanbhai Surajbhai. It appears that the complaint,
which has been filed is to bring pressure on the family of
the accused and the accused themselves. Exh.25, medical
certificate also notes overwriting. There is a overwriting
even on the time recorded for the examination of the
injured complainant. In the history before the Doctor,
except accused no.1, none have been named. While the
Deputy Superintendent of Police who had investigated the
matter, had stated that he had procured the certificate
Exh.25 from Sola Civil Hospital. Exh.25 does not suggest
that the patient had come with police yadi as the column is
blank, while the Deputy Superintendent of Police has
stated that the complainant was sent for the medical
treatment by the PSO on the date of the complaint, which
is 29.5.2004.
52. The evidence of beatings to the complainant does not get
proved by the evidence of other witnesses. The medical
evidence do not support the oral evidence. The version of
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/478/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/07/2025
undefined
all the witnesses are inconsistent. The learned Trial Court
Judge has failed to appreciate the case in accordance with
the evidence on record and has not gone in detail to
analyze the evidentiary value of the oral evidence of the
witnesses with the documentary evidence in the form of
medical evidence as well as the deposition of the Doctor.
The prosecution has failed to prove the offence under
Section 323 of the IPC the evidence does not find
consistency of all the witnesses. The delay in filing the FIR
has gone fatal to the root of the case. The documentary
medical evidence itself becomes doubtful since the date on
which the Doctor had examined the injured - complainant
does not get proved. Exh.25 has overwriting on the date
and time. The medical examination date of the complainant
does not get the support from the evidence of the
Investigating Officer. Even the versions of all the witnesses
with regard to injury to the complainant are contrary. The
evidence, thus, for the conviction under Section 323 of the
IPC cannot be believed.
53. The case under Section 452 of the IPC also becomes
doubtful which is for house trespass for hurt, assault or
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/478/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/07/2025
undefined
wrongful restraint. The allegation of house trespass is
against accused nos.1 and 2. However, in the medical
evidence, there is no such history accused no.1 entering
the house and hurting the complainant. The trespass
allegation becomes doubtful even on the fact of the case
that there is an access from the backyard of the house to
enter the kitchen, where the wall of the premises of the
accused is adjoining to that of the complainant. As per the
Panchnama, there is a direct access. That access has not
been used by the accused. The complainant as well as her
husband stated that accused nos.1 and 2 had entered the
house from the front door to reach to the kitchen. Accused
no.2 has not been named in the history before the medical
officer. In the same way, at Exh.40, there is no allegation of
house trespass on 24.5.2004, nor on 25.5.2004. It is
clearly on record that such facts have been created to
allege the offence against the accused and since there is no
independent evidence/witness supporting the case of the
complainant, no reliance can be placed on the evidence of
the witnesses, who are relatives of the complainant and are
interested witnesses.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/478/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/07/2025
undefined
54. The case under Sections 504 and 506(2) of the IPC and
Section 3(1)(x) of the Atrocities Act cannot be said to be
made out in the present case, since the evidence of the
husband - PW3 - Savdhanbhai clearly states that he had
not got it recorded in the police statement that the
accused, while leaving their house, had abused them by
their caste and had threatened to kill them in case of
demanding the money and to burn him by putting him in
the house. These allegations were made by the
complainant alleging that the utterance by all the accused
were made outside the house of the complainant, which
does not find support from the evidence of PW3. The
Panchnama of the place of offence had not been drawn by
the Deputy Superintendent of Police. He had placed
reliance on the Panchnama drawn by the Probationer
Police Sub-Inspector - Exh.31. The Deputy Superintendent
of Police has failed to further get the clarification from the
Panchas of Exh.31 who, as noted hereinabove, are also
interested persons since they are neighbours of the
complainant. Whether the place at the Veranda as noted in
Panchnama Exh.31 could be considered as falling in the
"public view", would be a question of fact, which was to be
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/478/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/07/2025
undefined
proved by member of public who as per the complainant
had also gathered there. There were people of Thakore
community on the north and south direction of
complainant's house, but none examined. The alleged
utterance does not find support from evidence of PW3 as
well as Exh.40. There is no independent person of the
public who had been examined to state that they had
heard such castiest remarks insulting the complainant or
her husband. The veranda is a place which is attached to
the house. As per the Panchnama, the house is falling on
the road of Harijanvas. After that road, leaving certain
area, there is a road towards Thakorevas. None have come
forward to state that they being a member of public have
seen such incident from the road on the veranda. The
Panchnama Exh.31 is not supported by map drawn by the
Probationer PSO with the help of expert, nor the Deputy
Superintendent of Police had made any attempt to get the
clarification of the place of offence through any sketch or
map, nor has he himself drawn the Panchnama of the
place of offence since the investigation with regard to the
offence under the Atrocities Act should be by the Deputy
Superintendent of Police. The Panchnama drawn by the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/478/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/07/2025
undefined
Probationer Police Sub-Inspector thus cannot be relied
upon as the evidence for investigation in connection with
the provision under the Atrocities Act. Even otherwise, if at
all the Panchnama is to be relied upon, the utterance by
the accused of any such casteist remarks are not proved by
PW3 as well as the son Kundanbhai Savdhanbhai through
his application Exh.40.
55. The learned Trial Court Judge has failed to appreciate the
sequence of events and has also failed to consider that
though there was an application on 26.5.2004 for the
proceedings as Chapter Case under Sections 107 and 151
of the Cr.P.C., by ASI of the same Police Station, then why
and under what circumstances, the complaint alleging the
incident of 24.5.2004 came to be filed. The learned Trial
Court Judge has failed to consider this aspect that such
allegations of beatings, injury and casteist remarks have
not been made in the application Exh.40 and the said fact
has been proved by the evidence of DW3 - Laxmansinh
Rana at Exh.39 who has very categorically stated that
there was no such statement by Savdhanbhai and even by
Kundanbhai as well as Savdhanbhai of any beatings or
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/478/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/07/2025
undefined
casteist remarks. The prosecution had failed to prove the
offence under the Atrocities Act. The offence under Section
3(1)(x) of the Atrocities Act was not proved during the trial.
The learned Trial Court Judge has failed to appreciate the
evidence in its right perspective. The evidence has not been
analyzed properly by detailing the evidence and
appreciating in accordance with law. Since this Court does
not find evidence against all the accused including the
juvenile to uphold the conviction, there would not be any
necessity for referring the matter of the appellant no.4 to
the Juvenile Board. The conviction and sentence is not
proper and just.
56. So far as the argument with regard to the compensation for
the appellant - accused on the ground of false accusation
is concerned, it requires to be noted that the matter is
under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities Act), 1989. Compensation is
primarily meant for the victims of the atrocity, not for those
falsely accused. The Act focuses for providing relief and
rehabilitation to the victims of the atrocity. It does not offer
explicit provision for compensating the individuals who are
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/478/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/07/2025
undefined
falsely accused. If an individual is falsely accused and later
acquitted, they may have ground to pursue legal action for
defamation or malicious prosecution depending on the
specific circumstances. The Act does not make specific
provisions for the false accusations, but the Act outlines
various forms of reliefs, including monetary compensation,
restoration of property and other support services for the
victims of atrocity. If an individual can prove that the
accusations were false, malicious and caused them
damage, they may be able to seek compensation through a
separate Civil Suit for defamation of malicious prosecution
and this would require demonstrating that the accuser
acted with malice and without reasonable and probable
cause. The Act does not contain provisions for punishment
of false witnesses and those who fabricate evidence. The
Atrocities Act focuses on providing relief to the victims of
the atrocity.
57. The Courts of India have judicially addressed the issue of
misuse of anti-atrocity laws in several instances. People
tend to use as a tool to fulfill their ulterior motive like
blackmailing and settling the disputes, be that monetary or
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/478/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/07/2025
undefined
any other political kind of dispute etc., while Parliament
has denied coming up with any safeguarding measures or
provision to prevent this misuse on the ground that it will
destroy the very essence of the Act for which it has been
enacted.
58. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The conviction and
sentence dated 4.3.2006 by the Fast Track Court,
Ahmedabad (Rural) in special atrocity case no.4 of 2004 is
quashed and set aside. Since the case against the
appellant no.1 had been abated, rest of the appellants are
acquitted. Record and proceedings be sent back to the
concerned Court.
(GITA GOPI,J)
Maulik/Caroline
