1. By way of present appeal, filed under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the appellant has challenged the judgment and order of acquittal dated 28.11.1997 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gondal, in Special Case No.106 of 1995. The said case was registered against the respondents–original accused for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 323, 506(2) of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 3(1)(10) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
2. According to the prosecution case, on 2.7.1995 the accused persons illegally assembled with an intention to harass and create riots atmosphere and beat the complainant. When the complainant denied to install loudspeaker near his house, the accused persons got angry and insulted the complainant about his caste and threatened to finish him. Hence the complaint came to be lodged.
3. Thereafter, investigation was carried out and statements of several witnesses were recorded. During the course of investigation, accused persons were arrested and, ultimately, chargesheet came to be filed against them in the Court of learned Special Judge.
4. Thereafter, charge came to be framed and explained to the accused persons, to which the accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
5. In order to bring home the charges against the accused persons, prosecution has examined several witnesses and also produced documentary evidence.
6. Thereafter, after filing closing pursis by the prosecution, further statements of the accused persons under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 were recorded. The accused persons have denied the case of the prosecution and submitted that a false case is filed against them.
7. At the conclusion of trial and after appreciating the oral as well as documentary evidence, the learned Judge vide impugned Judgment, acquitted the respondents – accused.
8. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said judgment and order of acquittal dated 28.11.1997 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gondal, in Special Case No.106 of 1995, the appellant – State has preferred the present appeal before this Court.
9. Heard Mr.Unmesh Trivedi, learned advocate for the appellant. Notice is served to the other side. Mr.L.B.Dabhi, learned APP is appearing for respondent – State.
10. Mr.Trivedi has contended that the judgment and order passed by the learned Judge is contrary to law and evidence on record. He has contended that the learned Judge has not properly appreciated oral as well as documentary evidence adduced by the parties in its proper perspectives.
11. He has contended that the trial Court committed material illegality of law and facts in recording the further statement of the accused. The injuries as narrated by the complainant Mangabhai is not tallied with the deposition of doctor examined at Ex.14. If eight accused persons beat the complainant, there will be injury marks on the body of the complainant. The complainant and his daughters were highly interested persons. There was no corroboration by the independent witnesses.
12. He has contended that the trial Court committed material illegality of law in believing the evidence led by hostile witness Kandas Bharatdas at Ex.17 and relying upon the panchnama produced at Ex.22. Before the trial Court learned advocate for the present appellant has prayed for probation under Section 360 of the Criminal Procedure Code and the trial Court has granted probation on the ground that the accused persons are agriculturist and illiterate and some of them are member of Gram Panchayat. Even the accused persons and complainant are from the same village. Lastly, he has read observations of the learned Judge and contended that the observations made by the learned Judge are not proper in the eye of law and therefore, judgment and order of the learned Judge is required to be set aside.
13. Mr.L.B.Dabhi, learned APP appearing for the respondent – State has supported the judgment and order passed by the learned Judge and contended that no interference is required in the present Appeal.
14. I have gone through the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned trial Judge and oral as well as documentary evidence produced on the record. I have read the oral evidence of prosecution witness complainant and also perused the charge framed against the accused persons. I have also considered the submissions advanced by the learned APP for the respondent State.
15. So far as main ingredient of common object is concerned, I have minutely perused oral evidence of the complainant and witnesses. They are unable to establish the case that what was common object of the member of assembly and when the common object is not established the question regarding Section 147 of the Indian Penal Code cannot come in the way of acquitting respondents. The learned Judge has rightly given probation to the appellants under Section 360 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
16. In a recent decision of the Apex Court in the case of State of Goa V. Sanjay Thakran
decision the Court has observed as under:
“16.From the aforesaid decisions, it is apparent that while exercising the powers in appeal against the order of acquittal the Court of appeal would not ordinarily interfere with the order of acquittal unless the approach of the lower Court is vitiated by some manifest illegality and the conclusion arrived at would not be arrived at by any reasonable person and, therefore, the decision is to be characterized as perverse. Merely because two views are possible, the Court of appeal would not take the view which would upset the judgment delivered by the Court below. However, the appellate court has a power to review the evidence if it is of the view that the conclusion arrived at by the Court below is perverse and the Court has committed a manifest error of law and ignored the material evidence on record. A duty is cast upon the appellate court, in such circumstances, to reappreciate the evidence to arrive to a just decision on the basis of material placed on record to find out whether any of the accused is connected with the commission of the crime he is charged with.”
17. Similar principle has been laid down by the Apex Court in the cases of State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Ram Veer Singh & Ors, reported in 2007 AIR SCW 5553 and in Girja Prasad (Dead) by LRs Vs. state of MP, reported in 2007 AIR SCW 5589. Thus, the powers which this Court may exercise against an order of acquittal are well settled.
18. It is settled legal position that in an acquittal Appeal, the Appellate Court is not required to rewrite the Judgment or to give fresh reasonings when the Appellate Court is in agreement with the reasons assigned by the trial Court acquitting the accused. In the instant case, this Court is in full agreement with the reasons given and findings recorded by the trial Court while acquitting the respondents – accused and adopting the said reasons as well as the reasons aforesaid, in my view, the impugned Judgment is just, legal and proper and requires no interference by this Court at this stage. Hence, this Appeal requires to be dismissed.
19. In the result, the Appeal is hereby dismissed. The impugned Judgment and order dated 28.11.1997 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gondal, in Special Case No.106 of 1995 is hereby confirmed. Record and Proceedings, if any, be sent back to the trial Court concerned, forthwith. Bail bond, if any, shall stands cancelled.
(Z.K.SAIYED, J.) kks