1. The present Appeal, under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, is filed by the appellant – State of Gujarat against the Judgment and order dated 31.7.1995 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Sabarkantha at Himatnagar, in Atrocity Case No. 24 of 1994, whereby the learned Judge has acquitted the respondents – original accused from the charges alleged against them. Against the said Judgment, the appellant – State has filed present Appeal against respondents – original accused.
2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are that the complainant Rajiben wd/o Ramabhai Kodarbhai Vankar had sent the written complaint to the P.S.I., Idar Police Station, alleging that on 29.1.1994 she has done fencing in her agricultural land where the respondents – accused have come there and gave filthy abuses to her and also insulted her about her caste and started cutting the fencing. However, at the intervention of Vajiben d/o the complainant they had gone to their house and at that time also it is alleged that the respondents gave threats and filthy abuses to the complainant. The offences under Sections 143, 352, 447, 504, 427 of I.P. Code and under Section 3(1)(5) of Atrocity Act was registered against the respondents – original accused.
3. Necessary investigation was carried out, statements of the witnesses were recorded. Thereafter, after completion of investigation, the charge-sheet was filed against the respondents – accused. Thereafter, the charge was framed against the respondents – accused. The respondents – accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed to be tried.
4. To prove the case against the accused, the prosecution has examined the witnesses and relied upon the documents. At the end of trial, after recording the statements of the respondents – accused, under Section 313 Cr. P.C., and after hearing the arguments on behalf of the prosecution and the defence, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, vide the impugned Judgment and order, has acquitted the respondents – accused from the charges levelled against them.
5. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the aforesaid Judgment and order of acquittal, the appellant – State of Gujarat has preferred this Appeal.
6. Heard learned A.P.P. Ms. Jirga Jhaveri, appearing on behalf of the appellant – State of Gujarat. Other side is served, but remained absent. I have also gone through the Judgment and order passed by the trial Court and also considered the documents produced on the record of the case.
7. Learned APP, appearing on behalf of the appellant, has contended that the Judgment and order passed by the learned Judge is without considering the facts and evidence on the record. She has contended that looking to the complaint and the deposition of the witnesses it clearly appears that accused have tried to drive out the complainant from the land in question which was under her legal possession. She has contended that though the respondents - accused were knowing that the complainant is of a Scheduled caste, they have insulted about her caste and gave filthy abuses and also gave threats to her. She has, therefore, contended that looking to the over all evidence, prima-facie, the prosecution has established its case beyond reasonable doubt and the learned Judge has wrongly acquitted the accused from the charges levelled against them. She, therefore, contended that the Judgment and order of the trial Court is bad in law and perverse and, therefore, the same requires to be quashed and set aside.
8. Other side is duly served, but, nobody is appearing on their behalf. I have also considered the oral as well as documentary produced on record.
9. I have also gone through the Judgment of the trial Court. On perusal of the Judgment of the trial Court, it appears that the learned Judge has observed that there are material contradictions in the deposition of the witnesses and the statements given before the Police. The trial Judge has also observed that from the oral as well as documentary evidence produced on the record, the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt that the accused have illegally entered the field of the complainant and committed the offence, as alleged against them. The land in question is in possession of the complainant is also not proved beyond reasonable doubt.
10. First of all, in the case of unlawful assembly, at least, five or more than 5 persons should be member of unlawful assembly. In the present case, looking to the evidence produced on the record, the prosecution has failed to establish that the respondents were the members of unlawful assembly. The prosecution also could not be able to prove that whether the accused have illegally entered the field of the complainant and committed an offence of tress-pass. As per the definition of Section 441 I.P. Code – criminal tress-pass, prima- facie, the possession of the property must be established. In the present case, it clearly appears that the land in question is a Government land and, therefore, the said land is not of the ownership of the complainant. Looking to the oral as well as documentary evidence, produced on the record, ingredients of common object and unlawful assembly is also not established beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, it appears that the accused have been falsely involved in the case. I am, therefore, of the opinion that the learned Judge has not committed any error in not believing the case of prosecution. In my opinion, therefore, the Judgment of the trial Court is proper and no interference is called for.
11. It is settled legal position that in acquittal appeal, the Appellate Court is not required to re-write 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 and for 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 view of above, the Appeal is dismissed. The Judgment and order dated 31.07.1995 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Sabarkantha at Himatnagar, in Atrocity Case No. 24 of 1994, is hereby confirmed. Bail Bonds, if any, shall stand cancelled. Record & Proceeding to be sent back to the trial Court immediately.
(Z.K.SAIYED, J.) sas