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 13.2.1995 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jamnagar, in Criminal Special Case No.10 of 1992. The said case was registered against the respondent–original accused for the offences punishable under Sections 235(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code read with Sections 323, 324, 504 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 3(1) and 5 of the Prevention of (Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe) Atrocities Act.
2. According to the prosecution case, on 3.9.1991 at around 9:00 O'clock in the morning the complainant was grazing his bullock in the vadi situated adjoining to the vadi of respondent – accused. At that time, the accused went to the complainant and asked why are you grazing your bullock here. The complainant replied that it is my palia that is why I am grazing bullock. The accused got angry and gave him one blow of knife, which he was having. The complainant fall down on the floor and started shouting. At that time, again the accused started beating him and uttered abusive words about his caste. 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 person was arrested and, ultimately, chargesheet came to be filed against him in the Court of learned Special Judge.
4. Thereafter, charge came to be framed and explained to the accused person, to which the accused person pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
5. In order to bring home the charges against the accused person, prosecution has examined several witnesses and also produced documentary evidence.
6. Thereafter, after filing closing pursis by the prosecution, further statements of the accused person under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 were recorded. The accused person has denied the case of the prosecution and submitted that a false case is filed against him.
7. At the conclusion of trial and after appreciating the oral as well as documentary evidence, the learned Judge vide impugned Judgment, acquitted the respondent – accused.
8. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said judgment and order of acquittal dated 13.2.1995 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jamnagar, in Criminal Special Case No.10 of 1992, 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 respondent – 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 that the complainant has fully supported the prosecution case. He is an injured. He is fully supported by the eye witness. The medical evidence also supported the prosecution case. She has contended that the learned Judge has erred in giving more emphasis to the minor omissions and contradictions appearing in the evidence of the complainant and the eye witnesses. Lastly, she has read observations of the learned Judge and contended that the 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.
12. 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 person. I have also considered the submissions advanced by the learned APP for the appellant State.
13. The learned Judge has rightly observed that presence of the father of the complainant at the place of incident is doubtful and therefore, reliance cannot be placed on the deposition of this witness. The other witness has turned hostile. There is no corroborative support to the statement of the complainant, hence the complainant has failed to prove the case against the respondent.
14. 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.”
15. 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.
16. 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 respondent – 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.
17. In the result, the Appeal is hereby dismissed. The impugned Judgment and order dated 13.2.1995 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jamnagar, in Criminal Special Case No.10 of 1992 acquitting the respondent – accused, is hereby confirmed. Record and Proceedings, if any, be sent back to the trial Court concerned, forthwith.
(Z.K.SAIYED, J.) kks