1. By way of present appeal, filed under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the appellant has challenged the judgment and order of acquittal dated 31.12.1991 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nadiyad, in Special Case No.11 of 1991. The said case was registered against the respondents–original accused for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 149, 448, 311, 436 read with Section 511, 427, 336 and 506(2) of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 3(1) (10) of the Prevention of (Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe) Atrocities Act.
2. According to the prosecution case, on 18.9.1991 at 5:00 O'clock in the evening the complainant went to eat Masala at that time accused persons came rushing to the complainant and gave him kicks and fists blows and took him near Milkdairy and uttered words about his caste and threatened to kill him. The complainant started shouting at that time Govindbhai Kohrabhai, mother and father of the complainant and one Revaben rushed to the spot. At that time the accused persons started pelting stones on them and locked the complainant in milkdairy. 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 31.12.1991 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nadiyad, in Special Case No.11 of 1991 the appellant – State has preferred the present appeal before this Court.
9. Heard Ms.Jirga Jhaveri, learned APP for the appellant – State. Notice is served to the other side but no one is present on behalf of the respondents – accused.
10. Ms.Jhaveri has contended that the judgment and order passed by the learned Judge is contrary to law and evidence on record. She 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. She has contended that the learned Judge ought to have appreciated the evidence of the complainant Nathabhai Dhulabhai, who has supported the prosecution case. She has contended that the learned Judge ought to have appreciated the prosecution witnesses' evidence who have supported the case of the prosecution.
12. She has read contents of charge and Medical Certificates and contended that the prosecution has not proved case beyond reasonable doubt through oral versions of the witnesses as well as independent witness. It is the case of unlawful assembly who had common object to commit the said offence. Lastly, she has read observations of the learned Judge and contended that 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. 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 appellant State.
14. I have read Medicate Certificates Ex.25 to 29. The learned Judge has rightly observed that as per opinion of Medical Expert injury is possible by some other reason and not as per allegation of the prosecution case. The prosecution has examined witnesses, but independent witnesses are not examined as per observation of the learned Judge. It is proved beyond reasonable doubt that only interested witnesses are examined by the prosecution. 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 Sections 147, 148 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code cannot come in the way of acquitting respondents.
15. 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.”
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 31.12.1991 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nadiyad, in Special Case No.11 of 1991 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