1.0. Present Appeal under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been preferred by the appellantState of Gujarat challenging the impugned judgment and order of acquittal dated 8.2.2012 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 2nd Fast Track Court, Godhra passed in Special Sessions Case No. 12 of 2010 acquitting the respondents herein original accused for the offences punishable under Sections 504, 506(2) and 114 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 3(1)(10) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. 3.0. That an FIR was lodged at Santrampur Police Station against the accused persons being CRII223/2009 for the offences punishable under Sections 504, 506(2) and 114 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 3(1)(10) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. It was the case on behalf of the original complainant that he was serving as a teacher and is having two daughters and one son and the elder daughter Bhavnaben studying in M.A in second year in Vidhyanagar and also residing their. It was alleged that on 3.10.2009 after completing her examination she would proceed towards Santrampur however she did not return the home and therefore, started inquiry about whereabout of his daughter Bhavna but he could not get any clue about her daughter. It was case on behalf of the complainant that while searching her daughter he came to know about the fact one Manojkumar Bhoi resident of Bhoiwada, Santramapur was taken away his daughter and therefore, he along with other persons had met at Bhoiwada and asked them to handover her daughter. On 15.11.2009 complainant along with others went to the residents of the accused persons and told them to handover his daughter and at that time the accused got excited and started abusive language and also threatened them to kill them if they will come back. Therefore, it was alleged that accused persons have committed the offences as alleged. After investigation was concluded the accused persons came to be charge sheeted for the aforesaid offence and the case was registered as 1220 of 2009. That as the case was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the learned JMFC has committed the case to the Sessions, which was numbered as Sessions Case No.12 of 2010 (Atrocity). That the learned trial Court framed the charge against the accused persons and plea of the accused came to be recorded. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and came to be tried.
3.1. That the prosecution examined as many as 10 witnesses and relied upon their oral testimony. That the prosecution examined one Udabhai Kanakbhai Damor PW No.1 at Exh.8. The prosecution also examined Ramabahi Dhanabhai Vankar at Exh.10, Valiben Ramabhai Vankar at Exh.14, Ganeshbhai Dhanabhai Vankar at Exh.15, Manguben Ramabhai Vankar at Exh.17, Hirabhai Bhagabhai at Exh.18, Jeshingbhai Rupabhai at Exh.19, Rukhiben Suburbhai Bhoi at Exh.20, Karamsinh Kurshibhai Desai at Exh.21 and Parsingbhai Limjibhai Damor at Exh.24. Prosecution also produced documentary evidences during the course of evidence. Further statement of the accused came to be recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, they denied the charge against them. That on appreciation of evidence the learned trial Court held that the prosecution has failed to prove by examining the independent witness the charge against the accused persons. The learned trial Court also considered the fact that as such incident has taken place at the residence of the accused persons and in fact the complainant and other persons went to the place of the accused. When the learned trial Court also considered the fact that son of the accused who was in love with the daughter of the complainant and therefore, the complainant and other persons went to the place of the accused for quarrel and therefore, the FIR came to be lodged. The learned trial Court also considered the fact that even one of the accused belong to the scheduled tribe community and therefore, he cannot be held guilty for the offence under the Atrocities Act. The learned trial Court also considered the fact that as such incident has taken place at the residence of the accused and not in a public place and consequently the learned trial Court by impugned judgment and order has acquitted all the accused for the offences for which they were tried. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order of acquittal, the trial State has preferred the present Criminal Appeal under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
4.0. Shri Dabhi, learned APP for the appellant State has vehemently submitted that the learned trial Court has materially erred in acquitting the accused persons for the offence under Sections 504, 506(2) and 114 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 3(1)(10) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
4.1. It is further submitted by Shri Dabhi, learned APP for the appellant State that the learned Judge ought to have appreciated version of the prosecution witnesses who supported the case of the prosecution. It is further submitted that the learned Judge has materially erred in disbelieving and discarding the evidence of witnesses examined by the prosecution. It is further submitted by Shir Dabhi learned APP that the learned Judge has not properly appreciated the fact that the accused were not aware of the fact that the complainant and the other witnesses belonged to the scheduled castes, still with an intention to insult them in public, used abusive language against their caste and thereby the respondents accused committed offence under Sections 3(1)(10) of the Act. It is submitted that under the circumstances the learned Judge ought to have convicted the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 504, 506(2) and 114 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 3(1)(10) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. By making above submissions, it is requested to allow / admit the present appeal.
5.0 Heard Shri Dabhi, learned APP for the appellant State at length and considered and gone through the impugned judgment and order of acquittal passed by the learned trial Court acquitting the accused persons for the offences 504, 506(2) and 114 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 3(1)(10) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and gone through the entire evidence oral as well as documentary from the record and proceedings received from the learned trial Court. At the outset, it is required to be noted that in fact the daughter of the complainant had married with the son of the accused no.1 Jasvantlal Mohanbhai Bhoi. It has also come on record that as such the complainant and his relatives and other witnesses went to the place of the accused making a grievance with respect to the marriage and / or making grievance with the son of the accused no.1 who had run away with the daughter of the complainant. Therefore, as such the incident has taken place at the residence of the accused and not in any public place. As such no independent witnesses have been examined by the prosecution to prove the case against the accused persons. All the witnesses who are examined are interested witness. It has also come on record that earlier also the complainant had gone to the place of the accused no.1 and the complainant was treated well and he has also given glass water and no untoward incident has taken place. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and when in absence of any independent witnesses examined by the prosecution the learned Judge has rightly acquitted the accused persons for the offences for which they were tried. The findings given by the learned trial Court are on appreciation of evidence and the same are neither perverse nor contrary to the evidence on record. Even it is not the case on behalf of the appellant that the finding given by the learned trial Court are either perverse and / or even other view is possible. Even this Court is also of the opinion that the finding arrived at by the learned trial Court is just and proper and no second view is possible. As observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajesh Singh & Others vs. State of Uttar Pradesh reported in (2011) 11 SCC 444 and in the case of Bhaiyamiyan Alias Jardar Khan and Another vs. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in (2011) 6 SCC 394, while dealing with the judgment of acquittal, unless reasoning by the learned trial Court is found to be perverse, the acquittal cannot be upset. It is further observed that High Court interference in such appeal in somewhat circumscribed and if the view taken by the learned trial Court was possible on the evidence, the High Court should stay its hands and not interfere in the matter in the belief that if it had been the trial Court, it might have taken a different view.
6.0 Considering the aforesaid decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the facts of the case on hand and as observed hereinabove even there cannot be possible two views other than view taken by the learned trial Court and therefore, interference of this Court in exercise of powers under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is not warranted.
7.0 In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, present appeal fails and same deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed.
kaushik sd/ ( M. R. Shah, J. )