1.0 Present Criminal Appeal under Section 378(1)(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been preferred by the appellant State of Gujarat against the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the learned Special Judge, Surendranagar camp at Limbdi dated 9.1.2012 in Special (Atrocity) Case No.11 of 2009, by which, the learned Special Judge has acquitted the respondent hereinoriginal accused for the offence under Sections 504, 506 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(1)(10) of the Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”).
2.0 That one Kanabhai Bhimabhai Bathvar lodged the FIR against the respondent herein original accused with Sayala Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 504, 506 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(1)(10) of the Act alleging inter alia that on 14.6.2008 at about 17.00 hours in the outskirts of village Nagadaka while the complainant asked the accused to prepare a nash lane for disbursement of water on the common road passing through the vadi of accused, accused got excited gave filthy abuses and by insulting his caste in public place. That after investigation was concluded the accused came to be chargesheeted for the aforesaid offences. As the case was exclusively Sessions triable, the case was committed to the learned Special Court which was numbered as Special Case No.11 of 2009. That charge was framed against the accused persons at Exh.7 and the plea of the accused was recorded and all the accused pleaded not guilty and therefore, they came to be tried for the aforesaid offence.
2.1. To prove the case against the accused persons the prosecution examined original complainant Kanabhai Bhimabhai Bathavar at Exh.17; examined two panch witnesses at Exhs. 23 and 25. The prosecution also examined four other witnesses at Exhs. 31, 32,33,35 and 37. The prosecution also led the documentary evidence at Exhs. 18, 19, 21,24 and 36. That thereafter, after the evidence was closed the further statement of the accused came to be recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in which accused persons denied the allegations against them. That on appreciation of evidence and considering the fact that there was already quarrel / dispute earlier between the complainant and the accused persons and having found that the prosecution has failed to prove what type of filthy language were used and that there were contradiction in the evidence with respect to the filthy language used against the caste the learned trial Court has held that prosecution has failed to prove the case against the accused persons and consequently learned Special Judge acquitted the accused persons for the offences under Sections 504, 506 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(1)(10) of the Act. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order of acquittal passed by the learned Special Judge, the appellant State of Gujarat has preferred present appeal under Section 378(1)(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
3.0 Shri Pujari, learned Additional Public Prosecutor has vehemently submitted that the learned Judge has materially erred in coming to the conclusion that prosecution has failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt. It is further submitted by Shri Pujari, learned Additional Public Prosecutor that learned Judge has materially erred in not considering the evidence of PW No.1 – Kanabhai Bhimabhai Bathvar, the complainant who has been examined at Exh.17. It is submitted that the said witness has deposed in is testimony about occurrence of incident and has specifically stated that while he was going to his village from Vadi, at that time, all the three accused having armed with sticks and asked him not to pass over there and therefore, insulted his caste. It is further submitted that the said witness also has further deposed that Mamlatdar had prepared a road here, accused told him that no such other road was lying there and thereafter administered threat to him that if he is walking on this road, they would kill him. It is submitted that even considering the evidence of PW No.2 Devajibhai Raybhanbhai; PW No.4 Savabhai Valabhai Bharvad, learned trial Court ought to have convicted the accused. By making above submissions, it is requested to admit/ allow present Criminal Appeal.
4.0 Heard Shri Pujari, learned Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the State and considered the impugned judgment and order of acquittal passed by the learned Special Judge while acquitting the respondents hereinoriginal accused for the offences under Sections 504, 506 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(1)(10) of the Act. This Court has also considered the entire evidence on record received from the learned trial Court to evaluate the evidence and consider whether the finding given by the learned trial Court are perverse and / or contrary to the evidence or not.
5.0 Considering the evidence on record, it appears that the complainant and the accused persons were having dispute with respect to the road. That except the deposition of the complainant no other independent witnesses have been examined to prove the case against the accused persons. On appreciation of evidence the learned trial Court has specifically come to the conclusion that it has not come on record that which type of filthy language were given by the accused. Even there are contradictions in the deposition of the complainant with respect to using bad language against the caste and / or insulting the accused. So far as other witnesses who are examined admittedly nobody was there at the time when the alleged incident has taken place and they came subsequently after some shout etc. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances when the learned Special Judge acquitted the accused no illegality has been committed by the learned Special Judge. The findings given by the learned Special Judge are on appreciation of evidence, which are neither perverse nor contrary to the evidence on record.
6.0 As observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajesh Singh & Others vs. State of Uttar Pradesh reported in (2011) 11 SCC 444 and in the case of Bhaiyamiyan Alias Jardar Khan and Another vs. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in (2011) 6 SCC 394 , while dealing with the judgment of acquittal, unless reasoning by the learned trial Court is found to be perverse, the acquittal cannot be upset. It is further observed that High Court's interference in such appeal in somewhat circumscribed and if the view taken by the learned trial Court is possible on the evidence, the High Court should stay its hands and not interfere in the matter in the belief that if it had been the trial Court, it might have taken a different view.
7.0 Considering the aforesaid decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the facts of the case on hand and as observed hereinabove even there cannot be possible two views other than view taken by the learned trial Court and therefore, interference of this Court in exercise of powers under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is not warranted.
8.0 In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, present appeal fails and same deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed.
kaushik sd/ ( M. R. Shah, J. )