The present acquittal Appeal has been filed by the appellant - original complainant, State of Gujarat under Section 378 of the Cr. P.C., against the Judgment and order dated 7.9.1994 rendered in Atrocity Case No.8 of 1994 by the learned Special Judge, Court No.12, Ahmedabad. The said case was registered against the present respondent original accused for the offence under Section 3(1)(10) of the Scheduled Caste & Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
According to the prosecution case, one Maheshbhai Becharbhai Vaghela (Vanker) has been working as clerk to Advocate Shri P.M.Bhatt, a practicing lawyer in Mirzapur Court complex. On 22.3.1994 at 10:00 a.m. He came to attend his job to the Court compound. For drinking tea at 10:45 he went to tea-stall situated outside the Court premises. While he was drinking a glass of water, the accused Valjibhai Arjanbhai Patel came there on Scooter. Looking at the complainant he told the owner of the tea-stall, "why you have given water in glass to this dhedha. We also have to drink water in this glass". Thereafter, he addressed the complainant and told him that, "why you dhedha are drinking water in glass". He also gave abuses to him. At that time Police were present so they arrested the accused.
Thereafter, investigation was carried out and statements of several witnesses were recorded. During the course of investigation, accused person was arrested and, ultimately, charge-sheet came to be filed against him in the Court of learned Special Judge.
Thereafter, charge came to be framed and explained to the accused person, to which the accused person not pleaded guilty and claimed to be tried.
In order to bring home the charges against the accused person, prosecution has examined several witnesses and also produced documentary evidence.
Thereafter, after filing closing pursis by the prosecution, further statements of accused person under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was recorded. The accused person have denied the case of the prosecution and submitted that a false case is filed against him.
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.
Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said judgment and order of acquittal dated 7.9.1994 rendered in Atrocity Case No.8 of 1994 by the learned Special Judge, Court No.12, Ahmedabad, the appellant - State has preferred the present appeal before this Court.
Heard Learned APP Ms.Hansa Punani, appearing on behalf of the appellant - State. She has contended that the acquittal is contrary to law, facts and evidence on record of the case. The learned Judge has failed to appreciate the prosecution witnesses and hence wrongly arrived at the conclusion that the accused has not committed an offence under Section 3(1)(10) of the Scheduled Caste & Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
She has contended that the learned Judge has failed to appreciate that there is no major contradiction or omission in the deposition of the prosecution witnesses. The learned Judge has failed to appreciate that in the deposition of prosecution witness Nos.3, 4 and 6 they have given corroboration to the deposition of the complainant. The learned Judge ought to have came to the conclusion that the accused has committed an offence under Section 3(1)(10) of the Scheduled Caste & Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
She has contended that the learned Judge has failed to appreciate the fact that the accused had given threat and lower-down impression of the complainant in public by speaking abusive words to the complainant and thereby the accused is guilty for an offence under Section 3(1)(10) of the Scheduled Caste & Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
Heard Mr.Umesh Trivedi, learned advocate for the respondent. He has contended that in light of stringent provisions of the Special Act, strict proof is required and therefore, evidence of the complainant requires deep scrutiny and if the evidence of the complainant is slightly unbelievable the benefit must be given to him.
He has contended that there is no iota of corroborative piece of evidence incriminating the accused. There is nothing in Ex.19 complaint that accused is a member of Scheduled Caste. He has contended that one R.C.Gandhi with assistance of the present complainant and investigating agency have colluded to rope the accused for the offence punishable under Atrocity Act. The prosecution has failed to establish ingredient of Section 3(1)(10) of Atrocity Act.
He has contended that according to complaint Ex.19 the accused came with the scooter at the scene of offence, the evidence of the complainant is silent as regards scooter. Not only that but Panchnama Ex.16 does not refer to any scooter. It is the prosecution case that they both were taken to police station from the scene of offence by constable on duty in Court compound whereas the prosecution has advanced another version that police-jeep came on the scene of offence. No satisfactory explanation is coming forth. Lastly he has contended that the present Appeal is required to be dismissed.
Heard learned advocates for both the parties. I have gone through the papers produced on record. Though witness Ratilal was very much present at the time of incident, name of this witnesses Raju and Ratilal do not appear in the complaint. The complainant is unauthorised clerk of the advocate having no legal permit issued by the District Judge of Mirzapur Court. The alleged incident occurred at the tea-stall of Rajubhai and in presence of another clerk. The complaint Ex.19 does not reflect their names. According to the complainant, as there was crowd gathered near the scene of alleged incident the police came in jeep and took the complainant and accused to the police station. The evidence of Investigating Officer, Kishorsinh Zala is otherwise. According to him, on 22.3.1994 at about 11:00 a.m. two persons were brought to Police Station by Police. The strict proof which requires to establish prosecution case should be adduced by the defence. The corroboration is lacking in the material to connect the accused with the crime. The prosecution has not proved the part of its case affirmatively by sufficient legal and convincing evidence. From the nature of evidence it does not appear that the accused intentionally insulted the complainant to humiliate in public.
In a recent 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 re-appreciate 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."
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.
It is settled legal position that in an 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 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.
In the result, the Appeal is hereby dismissed. The impugned Judgment and order dated 7.9.1994 rendered in Atrocity Case No.8 of 1994 by the learned Special Judge, Court No.12, Ahmedabad, 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 Top