Gujarat High Court
Mafabhai Vihabhai Dalit (Parmar) vs Jamabhai Bhathibhai Rabari & ... on 12 December, 2014
Author: Z.K.Saiyed
Bench: Z.K.Saiyed
R/CR.A/1414/2014 JUDGMENT
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CRIMINAL APPEAL (AGAINST ACQUITTAL) NO. 1414 of 2014
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE Z.K.SAIYED
================================================================
1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see
the judgment ?
2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ?
3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the
judgment ?
4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as
to the interpretation of the Constitution of India, 1950 or
any order made thereunder ?
5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ?
================================================================
MAFABHAI VIHABHAI DALIT (PARMAR)....Appellant(s)
Versus
JAMABHAI BHATHIBHAI RABARI & 3....Opponent(s)/Respondent(s)
================================================================
Appearance:
HCLS COMMITTEE, ADVOCATE for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR NILESH I JANI, ADVOCATE for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR HS SONI, APP for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 4
================================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE Z.K.SAIYED
Date : 12/12/2014
Page 1 of 9
R/CR.A/1414/2014 JUDGMENT
ORAL JUDGMENT
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 1.3.2014 passed by the learned Fifth Additional Sessions Judge, Banaskantha District at Disha, in Special Case No.22 of 2010. The said case was registered against the respondents- original accused for the offences punishable under Sections 447, 323, 504, 506(2) and 114 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 3(1)(10) of the Prevention of (Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe) Atrocities Act.
2. According to the prosecution case, on 4.5.2009 in the morning around 9:00 o'clock respondent Nos.1 to 3 had come at the house of appellant and started quarrel by saying that, why are you not releasing the possession of the land. The appellant replied that respondent No.2 has not given money and the respondent started abusing and beaten the appellant. On hearing quarrel appellant's wife and son came and Page 2 of 9 R/CR.A/1414/2014 JUDGMENT save the appellant from the respondents. 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 persons were arrested and, ultimately, chargesheet came to be filed against them in the Court of learned Special Judge.
4. Thereafter, charge came to be framed and explained to the accused persons, to which the accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
5. In order to bring home the charges against the accused persons, prosecution has examined several witnesses and also produced documentary evidence.
6. Thereafter, after filing closing pursis by the prosecution, further statements of the 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.
7. At the conclusion of trial and after Page 3 of 9 R/CR.A/1414/2014 JUDGMENT appreciating the oral as well as documentary evidence, the learned Judge vide impugned Judgment, acquitted the respondents - accused.
8. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said judgment and order of acquittal dated 1.3.2014 passed by the learned Fifth Additional Sessions Judge, Banaskantha District at Disha, in Special Case No.22 of 2010, the appellant has preferred the present appeal before this Court.
9. Heard Mr.Nilesh Jani, learned advocate for the appellant. He has contended that the learned Judge has failed to consider the fact that case was registered under Atrocity Act and investigation was made by Police Officer with rank of Dy.S.P., however his evidence has not been properly appreciated.
10. He has contended that the trial Court ought to have considered the deposition given by the eyewitness i.e. Ex.31 and 36, son and wife of the appellant respectively. They were present at the time of incidence. He has contended that at Ex.31 Naranbhai Mafabhai, has stated Page 4 of 9 R/CR.A/1414/2014 JUDGMENT that he and his mother were in the farm known as Nanivadu in the morning around at 9:00 O'clock, all the respondent Nos.1 to 3 came to their home and started abusing and began to beating the appellant in the presence of P.W. No.31 and 36. He has contended that P.W. No.31 requested the respondent Nos.1 to 3 to release but thereafter respondent Nos.1 to 3 further abused with regard to the caste of the appellant. While returning the respondent Nos.1 to 3 threatened to kill him and also told him insulting words. Lastly, he 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.
11. Heard Mr.H.S.Soni, learned APP for the appellant - State. He has supported the judgment and order passed by the learned trial Judge. He has submitted that the learned trial Judge after considering the material on record as well as evidence rightly acquitted the respondents accused. It is submitted that the appellant has failed to prove the case against the Page 5 of 9 R/CR.A/1414/2014 JUDGMENT respondents beyond reasonable doubt.
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 witnesscomplainant and also perused the charge framed against the accused persons. I have also considered the submissions advanced by the learned APP for the State.
13. The learned Judge has rightly observed at para17. It is proved beyond reasonable doubt that only interested witnesses are examined. So far as main ingredient of common object is concerned, I have minutely perused oral evidence of the complainant and witnesses. They are unable to establish the case that what was common object of the member of assembly.
14. 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:
Page 6 of 9R/CR.A/1414/2014 JUDGMENT "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 Page 7 of 9 R/CR.A/1414/2014 JUDGMENT 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 respondents - 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 1.3.2014 passed by the learned Fifth Additional Sessions Judge, Banaskantha District at Disha, in Special Case No.22 of 2010, acquitting the respondents - accused, is hereby confirmed. Record and Proceedings, if any, be sent back to the trial Court concerned, forthwith.
Page 8 of 9 R/CR.A/1414/2014 JUDGMENT
(Z.K.SAIYED, J.)
KKS
Page 9 of 9