The applicant by way of this Revision Application under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code, has challenged the order dated 31.3.2011 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court No.1, Vadodara in Atrocity (Special) Case No.14 of 2010, whereby the learned Judge has acquitted the respondent Nos.1 to 7 - original accused from the charges under Sections 14, 323, 504, 506(2) of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 3(1)(10) of the Atrocity Act.
The brief facts leading to the case of the applicant are that the applicant - original complainant lodged a complaint being I Crime Register No.11 of 2010 for the offences punishable under Sections 14, 323, 504, 506(2) of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 3(1)(10) of the Atrocity Act with Majalpur Police Station, Vadodara against the accused Nos.1 to
7. It was contended in the complaint that applicant and accused persons were the resident of the same society and since the work of constructing RCC road was going on in the society and since all the accused persons were the members of the society, they were doing the work of constructing RCC road. When accused persons were going to construct RCC road in the land of applicant, the applicant had interrupted in the said activity, due to which, accused got angry and in collusion with each other, accused persons used abusive language against the applicant and his son - Piyushbhai and also threatened for dire consequences. Thereafter, gave fist blows to them and since complainant and his son are persons of scheduled caste, accused used abusive language against their caste and insulted in the public. The said complaint was lodged on 5.1.2010.
Thereafter, investigation was carried out and statements of several witnesses were recorded. During the course of investigation, accused persons were arrested on 16.1.2010 and, ultimately, charge-sheet came to be filed against them on 9.2.2010 in the Court of learned Judge.
Thereafter, charge came to be framed and explained to the accused persons, to which the accused persons not pleaded guilty and claimed to be tried. As the case was not triable by the Magistrate the same was committed to the Court of Sessions.
In order to bring home the charges against the accused persons, prosecution has examined several witnesses and also produced documentary evidence.
Thereafter, after filing closing pursis by the prosecution, further statements of accused persons under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 were recorded. The accused persons have denied the case of the prosecution and submitted that a false case is filed against them.
After hearing both the sides, the learned Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court No.1, Vadodara, by his judgment and order dated 31.3.2011 passed in Atrocity (Special) Case No.14 of 2010 acquitted the accused persons as stated above.
Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said judgment and order of acquittal dated 31.3.2011 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court No.1, Vadodara, the applicant has preferred the present Revision Application before this Heard Mr.K.I.Kazi, learned advocate appearing for applicant and Mr.H.L.Jani, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent No.1 - State.
The judgment and order of acquittal is challenged on various grounds as mentioned in the memo of Revision. He has contended that the judgment and order of the learned Judge is not proper and he has committed grave error of law in acquitting the accused. So far as witnesses of the prosecution are concerned, the prosecution has examined five witnesses in connection of the said offence, who are eye-witnesses. He has further contended that learned Judge has not considered oral version of the relative. He has read medical evidence of the prosecution witnesses No.8 and 9 and contended that both are public servants. He has read Ex.31 and 41 which are injury certificates. He has contended that from the oral version of the witnesses, the case of the prosecution is proved beyond reasonable doubt. He has lastly contended that the learned Judge has not considered case of the prosecution and wrongly acquitted the accused.
Heard Mr.H.L.Jani, learned APP for the respondent - State. He has read the judgment and order passed by the learned Judge. He has vehemently argued that root of the prosecution case is not established beyond reasonable doubt. Mr.Jani, therefore, contended that the judgment and order of the learned Judge does not require any interference.
From the perusal of the oral version of the complainant -Jamnaben S. Tadvi it is proved beyond reasonable doubt that at the time of the registration of the N.C.Complaint she was present with her son - Piyush at the Police Station and at that time she disclosed the facts regarding present case. Even from the oral version of the Investigating Officer - Dipaksinh. D. Chaudhri Ex.43 it is admitted by the officer that prior to registration of the complaint, N.C.Complaint given by the complainant - Piyush was registered and investigation was handed over to him in connection with that N.C.Complaint. Piyush, son of the complainant has not narrated anything regarding the abusive words uttered by the accused of his own caste. I have also perused the oral version of Balwantsinh C. Rana - A.C.P. Ex.44 who has recorded the statement of the witnesses and obtained Certificate of Caste and Leaving Certificate and thereafter he has filed charge-sheet. In that case, he has fairly admitted that he has not recorded any statement of the resident of the society. He has also admitted that offence in question is committed in the open space of the society and the police visited that place but they never recorded any statement of the witnesses. It is also proved prima-facie that Investigating Officer has never obtained any paper regarding ownership of that land. Statement of the star witness of the prosecution who accompanied the injured person was not recorded by the Investigating Officer. It is also on record that at the time of the incident when there was heated exchange of words between the present complainant, witnesses and accused and so many persons as well as eye witnesses were present there, yet their statements were not recorded by the Investigating Officer and it is not explained by the Investigating Officer. Even looking to the time of filing of the complaint, there is delay but the same is not explained by the complainant. The learned Judge has also considered that looking to the investigation it is not carried out in fair manner and, therefore, conduct of the Investigating Officer also creates some doubt.
I have perused the contents of Medical Certificate Ex.39 and it appears that from the Medical Certificate as well as evidence of the medical expert that there was no injury found by the medical expert. In the result, I am of the view that the learned Judge has considered oral as well as documentary evidence of the case and has also given sound reasons for acquittal.
I have gone through the observations of the learned Judge and documentary evidence of the prosecution, but I do not find any substance in the present Revision Application.
I have gone through papers produced before me and the judgment and order passed by the learned Judge. I have also perused the oral as well as documentary evidence led before the trial Court and also considered the submissions made by learned counsel.
In above view of the matter, I am of the considered opinion that the learned Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court No.1, Vadodara was completely justified in acquitting the respondent Nos.1 to 7 - original accused, of the charges levelled against them.
I find that the findings recorded by the learned Judge are absolutely just and proper and in recording the said findings, no illegality or infirmity has been committed by the learned Judge.
Hence, in view of the foregoing reasons, present Revision Application is dismissed. The judgment and order of acquittal dated 31.3.2011 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court No.1, Vadodara in Atrocity (Special) Case No.14 of 2010 is hereby confirmed. Record and Proceedings, if any, be sent back to the trial Court concerned, forthwith.
(Z.
K. SAIYED, J) kks Top