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 22.05.1996 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Junagadh, in Sessions Case No. 124 of 1992, 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 the complainant was serving as Talati-cum-Mantri at village Babartirth. It is alleged that on 17.6.1992 at about 9.30 O'clock in the morning when he was pasting the Notice on the Notice Board, at that time, the accused (respondents herein) came there and hot discussion took place for the purpose of making arrangement of water. They have tried to estop the complainant for doing his public work and also gave filthy abuses and insulted the complainant. They have also caused injury to the
accused for the offences under Sections 186, 333, 504 read with Section 114 of I.P. Code and under Section 135 of the Bombay Police 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 Sessions, the learned Magistrate committed the case to the Court of Sessions. Thereafter, the charge was framed against the respondents – accused. The respondent – 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. Jirga Jhaveri, appearing on behalf of the appellant – State of Gujarat and Mr. M.R. Moulvi for Mr. Shakil Qureshi, 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 considering 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 him. 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. Moulvi, 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 also contended that the complainant has not disclosed the name of assailants before the Doctor and the complainant, without the Police Yadi, had gone to the Hospital. He has contended that there is delay in filing the complainant which is not explained by the complainant. He has contended that the material witnesses have not supported the case of the 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. It is also established that the complainant has not disclosed the name of the assailant before the Doctor and without yadi the complainant went to the Hospital. It also appears that there are delay in filing the complainant which is not explained by the complainant. As per the panchnama Exh.21 even the presence of the respondent is not proved. Looking to the evidence produced on the record, it clearly appears that the eye witness has not supported the case of the prosecution. The material witness – Investigating Officer is not examined. 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 22.05.1996 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Junagadh, in Sessions Case No. 124 of 1992, 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