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 09.07.1997 passed by learned Special Judge, Mehsana, in Special (Atro.) Case No. 56 of 1997, whereby the learned Judge has acquitted the respondents – original accused from the charges alleged against them. Against the said Judgment and order of acquittal, the appellant – State has filed present Appeal.
2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are that on 24.3.1996 the complainant, along with her husband and sons, was present in her field. It is alleged that for the purpose of agricultural crops, thresher was hired by the complainant. It is alleged that after finishing the agricultural work, the accused did not permit the driver of thresher to take the same through their field. Thereafter, the accused came to the complainant and gave filthy abuses and they have also assaulted and and injured the complainant and insulted the complainant about her caste. Therefore, the complainant lodged complaint in Mansa Police Station against the accused for the offences under Sections 323, 324, 504, read with Section 114 of I.P. Code and under Section 3(1)(10) of Atrocities Act.
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 in the Court of learned Magistrate. Thereafter, as the case was triable by the Court of learned Special Judge, the learned Magistrate committed the case to the Court of learned Special Judge. 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 statement of the respondent – 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. Hansa Punani, appearing on behalf of the appellant – State of Gujarat and Mr. Vivek Bhamra for Mr. Nagarkar, appearing on behalf of the respondents – accused. 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 appreciating the facts and evidence on the record. She has contended that looking to the complaint and the deposition of the witnesses and the medical certificate, it clearly appears that the respondents - accused have assaulted on the complainant and caused injury to her and also insulted the complainant about her caste. She has also contended that the medical evidence and the deposition of the Medical Officer also support the case of the prosecution and, therefore, the learned Judge without considering it, should not have discarded the same and acquitted the respondents – accused from the alleged charges. 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. On behalf of respondents, learned Advocate Mr. Bhamra, has supported the Judgment and order of the learned trial Judge. He has contended that there are material contradictions in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. He has contended that the material witnesses have not supported the case of prosecution. He has contended that the learned Judge has considered the oral and the documentary evidence produced on the record and after considering the same, the learned Judge has rightly acquitted the respondents from the charges alleged against them and, therefore, no interference is required to be called for.
9. From the observation of the trial Court it is clearly established that there are material contradictions in the deposition of the witnesses and the statements given before the Police. The learned Judge has categorically observed that the witnesses, who can be said to be an independent witnesses, have not supported the case of the prosecution. The evidence of the complainant creates some doubt. From the papers, it is clearly established that the complainant has no right to allow the tractors, etc. from the field of the accused. On the date of the incident the tractor of the witness Kesrisinh Jashvantsinh had gone to the field of the complainant, through the field of the accused, and damaged the crops of the accused and just to see that the accused may not lodge complaint against the complainant for the said damage, the present false case has been filed by the complainant against the respondents – accused. In my opinion, therefore, the Judgment of the trial Court is proper and no interference is called for.
10. 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 respondent – 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.
11. In view of above, the Appeal is dismissed. The Judgment and order dated 09.07.1997 passed by the learned Special Judge, Mehsana, in Special (Atrocity) Case No. 56 of 1997, 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