1. The applicant – original complainant has filed this Revision Application under Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr.P.C., being aggrieved by the Judgment and order dated 30.6.2003 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Himatnagar, in Atrocity Case No. 19 of 2002, whereby the learned Judge has acquitted the respondents No.2 to 5 – original accused Nos.1 to 4 from the charges levelled against them.
2. The case of the prosecution is that on 24.4.2002, at about 8.30 A.M., the complainant along with other three labourers were working in the farm of one Arunbhai Somabhai Sutaria and at that time accused Nos.1 & 2 came there and started abusing the complainant by using derogatory and vulgar language and insulted the complainant. The complainant thereupon contacted the land owner, who has advised him to keep on working and assured the complainant that when he (land owner) will come to the village, he will solve the problem and, therefore, the complainant continued to work in the farm. It is alleged that once again on 28.4.2002, when the complainant was working in the farm along with other persons, the respondents – original accused Nos.1 to 4 came there and started giving abuses to the complainant and his land owner and insulted the complainant by using filthy language about his caste. Thereafter, the complaint have been filed by the complainant against the present respondents No.2 to 5 before Himatngar Town Police Station on 30.4.2002 and the said complaint was forwarded to the Gahnboi Police station, vide CR No. 37 of 2002. Thereafter, the said case was registered as Atrocity Case No.19 of 2002 before the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Himatnagar.
The learned Judge, after recording the evidence of witnesses and after hearing the parties, by Judgment and order dated 30.6.2003 acquitted all the accused. Being aggrieved by the said Judgment and order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, the present applicant has filed this Revision Application.
3. Heard learned Advocate Mr. Bhairaviya, appearing for the applicant, learned A.P.P. Mr. Jani, appearing on behalf of respondent No.1 – State and Mr. Japee, appearing on behalf of respondents No.2 to 5 – original accused Nos.1 to 4.
4. Learned Advocate Mr. Bhairavia has contended that the learned Judge has failed to appreciate the evidence produced on the record. The complainant has categorically stated in his examination in chief as also in the cross examination that all the accused came to the farm and gave abuses to the petitioner and used filthy language and insulted by saying humiliating words and threatened the petitioner, in presence of the witnesses. He has contended that the evidence is corroborated with the FIR Exh.18. He has contended the trial Court should have appreciated the fact that all the accused have identified by the complainant as well as other witnesses. He has contended that the trial Court has failed to appreciate the object and aim of the Atrocities Act by not considering the corroborated evidence on the record which constitute the offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act. He has, therefore, contended that looking to the facts and evidence produced on the record, the learned Judge has erred in acquitting the respondents – accused from the charges levelled against them. The learned Advocate has fairly admitted that State Government has not filed Appeal against the impugned Judgment and order of the trial Court.
5. I have also heard the learned A.P.P. Mr. Jani, appearing on behalf of the respondent – State and learned Advocate, appearing on behalf of the respondents – accused, and perused the impugned Judgment and order of the trial Court and the papers produced before me.
6. From the Judgment and the order of the trial Court it clearly appears that there are number of contradictions in the evidence of the complainant. It also appears that there is also delay in filing the complaint by the complainant. No doubt, the complainant has produced the caste Certificate, but, it is not clearly mentioned in the certificate as to in which caste the complainant belongs. Eye witnesses to the alleged incident P.W. 3 - Rameshbhai Salubhai Damor (Exh. 25) and P.W.5 – Vinodbhai Ugrabhai Patel (Exh. 27) have not supported the case of the prosecution and there are number of contradictions in the evidence of P.W.4 – Shambhubhai Sendhabhai Chenva (Exh. 26). In further statement, recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the accused No.1 has categorically stated that on the date of incident he was in service and he has also produced the certificate to that effect.
7. Looking to the evidence produced on the record, it clearly appears that the learned Judge has not committed any error in not believing the case of the prosecution. I am, therefore, of the opinion that the learned Judge has rightly acquitted the accused from the charges alleged against them. It also appears that even the State Government has chosen not to file Appeal against the said Judgment and order of the learned Judge.
8. In view of above, the revision Application deserves to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. Rule is discharged.
(Z.K.SAIYED, J.) sas