1. The present acquittal Appeal has been filed by the appellant – original complainant, State of Gujarat under Section 378 of the Cr.
P.C., against the Judgment and order dated 6.7.1992 rendered in Special (Atrocity) Case No.136 of 1991 by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Banaskantha at Palanpur. The said case was registered against the present respondents original accused for the offence under Sections 504, 506(2) read with Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 3(1)(10) of the Scheduled Caste & Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
2. According to the prosecution case, the complainant Ranchhodbhai Khemabhai Harijan is residing at Village : Kapasiya, Taluka : Palanpur, Dist. Banaskantha and doing labour work. As per his say, in his village other community people are torturing Harijan and often there is quarrel between them. For this sort of act they staged 'dharna' (protest) in front of the Collector Office. Before one week of dated 4.11.1991 at 10:00 o'clock in night respondents – accused came with stick, dhariya and sword to the house of complainant and uttered abusive words and told him 'koda' 'dhenda' and threatened to kill him. At that time, notification of District Magistrate was in operation. The complainant gave an application to District Superintendent of Police, Banaskantha, pursuant to this incident.
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 Magistrate.
4. Thereafter, charge came to be framed and explained to the accused persons, to which the accused persons not pleaded 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 accused persons under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was 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 6.7.1992 rendered in Special (Atrocity) Case No.136 of 1991 by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Banaskantha at Palanpur, the appellant – State has preferred the present appeal before this Court.
4. Heard Learned APP Ms.Hansa Punani, appearing on behalf of the appellant – State. She read charge Ex.5 and contended that present complainant is a Member of Scheduled Caste and present respondent committed the alleged offence. She has contended that prosecution has examined material witness, Babubhai Hemabhai at Ex.17. Looking to the evidence of this witness learned Judge has not considered evidence of prosecution.
5. She has contended that looking to the ingredients of Sections 506 and 503 of the Indian Penal Code prosecution has proved case beyond reasonable doubt and learned Judge has considered that complaint Ex.16 is filed after 8 days and delay is not explained with proper reasons. She has contended that from the evidence of the Investigating Officer the case of the prosecution is proved beyond reasonable doubt. Lastly she has contended that the judgment and order of the learned Judge is required to be quashed and set aside.
6. Heard Mr.Chintan P. Champaneri, learned advocate appearing for Mr.Harin Raval, for the respondents – accused. He has read oral evidence of the P.W. No.1 – complainant and contended that no recovery is made from the present accused persons. Even the Investigating Officer has not made any attempt to recover muddamal. He has contended that looking to the old enmity between the respondents and the complainant and due to election of the Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat present respondents are wrongly booked by the complainant.
7. He has contended that primafacie a concocted case is filed by the complainant. The complainant is a habitual person to file complaint against the village persons. He has further contended that so far as ingredient of Section 503 of the Indian Penal Code are concerned, the case is not proved beyond reasonable doubt. Lastly he has contended that the present Appeal is required to be dismissed.
8. Heard learned advocates for both the parties. I have gone through the papers produced on record. From the oral version of the P.W. No.1 it appears that he has admitted that the respondent No.1 – original accused No.1 is elected as Sarpanch and complainant was also one of the candidate for the post of Sarpanch. It also appears from the cross examination that complainant is a Member of Panchayat. He is experienced person and looking to the date of offence he never bothered to approach the Police Station even upto one week and after one week complaint is lodged by him. The material witness P.W. No.2 states that he is a witness in this offence. But looking to the oral version of this witness case of the prosecution is not proved beyond reasonable doubt and his evidence is totally in contradictory manner.
9. In a recent 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.”
10. 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.
11. 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.
12. In the result, the Appeal is hereby dismissed. The impugned Judgment and order dated 6.7.1992 rendered in Special (Atrocity) Case No.136 of 1991 by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Banaskantha at Palanpur, acquitting the respondents – accused, is hereby confirmed. Record and Proceedings, if any, be sent back to the trial Court concerned, forthwith.
(Z.K.SAIYED, J.) kks