1. The present Criminal Appeal u/s.378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been preferred by the appellant herein – original complainant to quash and set aside the impugned judgement and order of acquittal dated 18/08/2011 passed by learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Court No.17, Ahmedabad in Criminal Case No.1147 of 2002, by which, learned Trial Court has acquitted respondent Nos.2 to 4 – original accused for the offences punishable under Sections 504, 506(1) and 114 of the Indian Penal Code.
2. Appellant herein – original complainant filed private complaint u/s.190 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the accused persons for the offences punishable under Sections 504, 506(1) and 114 of the Indian Penal Code, alleging inter alia that the accused persons gave threats on phone on 03/04/2002 that the complainant and his son will be killed. That learned Magistrate directed to issue summons against the accused persons. That on service of summons, original accused appeared before the learned Trial Court and their plea were recorded and they had not pleaded guilty and, therefore, the trial was proceeded further.
3. On behalf of the complainant, the complainant himself came to be examined at Exh-27 and his son Jagatbhai came to be examined at Exh.32. Documentary evidences were produced at Exhs.29, 30 and 31. Thereafter, further statement of accused came to be recorded u/s.313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure denying allegations him. On appreciation of evidence, learned Trial Court held that the complainant has failed to prove the case against the accused beyond doubt and failed to prove that any threats were given by original accused persons and learned Trial Court acquitted the original accused persons for the offences punishable under Sections 504, 506(1) and 114 of the Indian Penal Code.
4. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the impugned judgement and order of acquittal passed by learned Trial Court for the offences punishable under Sections 504, 506(1) and 114 of the Indian Penal Code, the appellant herein – original complainant has preferred the present Criminal Appeal u/s.378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
5. Mr.Gaurav Chudasama, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant herein has vehemently submitted that learned Trial Court has materially erred in acquitting the accused persons for the offences punishable under Sections 504, 506(1) and 114 of the Indian Penal Code. It is submitted that considering depositions of the complainant and his son Jagatbhai, learned Trial Court ought to have believed the case on behalf of the complainant that the accused had given threats to the complainant and ought to have convicted the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 504, 506(1) and 114 of the Indian Penal Code.
By making above submissions, it is requested to admit/allow the present appeal.
6. Heard Mr.Chudasama, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant herein and Mr.L.B.Dabhi, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent-State and considered, gone through and perused the the record and proceedings of the case received from learned Trial Court. This Court has also considered the findings given by learned Trial Court while acquitting respondent Nos.2 to 4 for the offences punishable under Sections 504, 506(1) and 114 of the Indian Penal Code.
Considering the same, it appears that the appellant herein – original complainant has failed to prove that any threats were given by the accused persons on phone, as alleged. Under the circumstances, when complainant and prosecution failed to prove the case against the accused beyond doubt, no illegality has been committed by learned Trial Court in acquitting the accused persons for the offences punishable under Sections 504, 506(1) and 114 of the Indian Penal Code.
7. As observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajesh Singh & Others V/s. State of Uttar Pradesh reported in (2011)11 SCC 444 and in the case of Bhaiyamiyan Alias Jardar Khan and Another V/s. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in (2011)6 SCC 394, while dealing with the judgement of acquittal, unless reasoning by the learned Trial Court is found to be perverse, the acquittal cannot be upset.
8. In view of the above and for the reasons stated hereinabove, there is no substance in the present Criminal Appeal and the same deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed.
[M.R.SHAH,J] *dipti