1. By way of present appeal, filed under Section 378(1)(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the appellant has challenged the judgment and order of acquittal dated 6.12.2003 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate (Court No.10), Ahmedabad City, in Criminal Case No.1374 of 1995. The said case was registered against the respondents–original accused for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 294B and 114 of the Indian Penal Code.
2. According to the prosecution case, on 29.3.1994 the accused No.2 gave punch blow on rightside face of the complainant and further more all the accused persons have given abuses to the complainant and, thereby committed offence punishable under Sections 323, 294B and 114 of the Indian Penal Code. 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 Metropolitan Magistrate Court.
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 Magistrate vide impugned Judgment and order, acquitted the respondents – accused.
8. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said judgment and order of acquittal dated 6.12.2003 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate (Court No.10), Ahmedabad City, in Criminal Case No.1374 of 1995, the appellant – State has preferred the present appeal before this Court.
9. Heard Mr.L.B.Dabhi, learned APP for the appellant – State. Notice is served to the other side. Mr.Chirag Pawar, learned advocate is appearing for the respondents – accused.
10. Mr.Dabhi has contended that the judgment and order passed by the learned Magistrate is contrary to law and evidence on record. He has contended that the learned Magistrate has not properly appreciated oral as well as documentary evidence adduced by the parties in its proper perspectives.
11. He has contended that the learned Magistrate ought to have believed the evidence of the complainant, who was examined at Ex.4. He has given evidence leading to the filing of the complaint. He has also identified the accused in the Court as his assailants. He has contended that the learned Magistrate ought to have believed the evidence of the wife of the complainant Shardaben, who was examined at Ex.7. She has stated in her evidence that both the accused had assaulted her.
12. He has contended that the learned Magistrate ought to have believed the evidence of Shantilal Parshottamdas, who was examined at Ex.8. He has given evidence supporting the prosecution case. He has contended that the learned Magistrate ought to have believed the evidence of Dr.Apurvabhai Surendrabhai, who treated the injured first and was examined at Ex.10. He has also clearly stated that the injuries caused to the injured are possible by giving kick and fist blows. He has further stated that as per history given by the complainant, the said injuries were caused by the accused. Lastly, he has read observations of the learned Magistrate and contended that the observations made by the learned Magistrate are not proper in the eye of law and therefore, judgment and order of the learned Magistrate is required to be set aside.
13. I have gone through the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned trial Court 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 advocates for respective parties.
14. The learned Magistrate has rightly observed that prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. As per say of the complainant the accused persons abused in a filthy language, but there is no evidence on record that which filthy language were used by the accused persons to the complainant. Hence the complainant has failed to prove the case against the respondents.
15. In a decision of the Apex Court in the case of State of Goa V. Sanjay Thakran & Anr. Reported in (2007)3 SCC 75, the Court has reiterated the powers of the High Court in such cases. In para 16 of the said 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.”
16. 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.
17. 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.
18. In the result, the Appeal is hereby dismissed. The impugned Judgment and order dated 6.12.2003 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate (Court No.10), Ahmedabad City, in Criminal Case No.1374 of 1995, acquitting the respondents – accused, is hereby confirmed. Record and Proceedings, if any, be sent back to the trial Court concerned, forthwith. Bail bond, if any, shall stand cancelled.
(Z.K.SAIYED, J.) kks