Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Shantiji Jalaji Koli & 3 on 27 January, 2015
Author: Anant S. Dave
Bench: Anant S. Dave, G.R.Udhwani
R/CR.MA/21833/2014 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL) NO.
21833 of 2014
In CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1483 of 2014
With
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1483 of 2014
=============================================
==
STATE OF GUJARAT....Applicant(s)
Versus
SHANTIJI JALAJI KOLI & 3....Respondent(s)
=============================================
==
Appearance:
MR JK SHAH ADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the Applicant(s) No. 1
=============================================
==
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANANT S. DAVE
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.UDHWANI
Date : 27/01/2015
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANANT S. DAVE)
1. This application for leave to appeal under Section 378 (1) (3) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short "the Code 1973") is preferred by the State of Gujarat/complainant on the ground that a decision is taken to prefer appeal against the judgement and order of acquittal passed by learned 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Deesa, Banaskantha, in Sessions Case No.89 of 2011 and 109 of 2011 acquitting the respondent-accused from charges punishable under Sections 326, 333 and 114 of Indian Penal Code and accordingly this application is Page 1 of 4 R/CR.MA/21833/2014 ORDER preferred.
2. As per the case of the prosecution in brief, while complainant was serving in Dhanera Police Station, he along with another Asst. Sub Inspector had gone to serve the warrant to accused No.3 of Special case No.14 of 2010 pending in the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Deesa. When they reached village Aashya, Taluka: Dhanera, two other persons came to rescue the accused of above sessions case and scuffle took place where accused No.2 assaulted the complainant and got hold and gave a bite on right hand as well as on left ear and another person namely Chanduji came there with "iron taveta" and another person with stick and thus caused injuries to complainant which was noticed by Medical Officer and it is reflected from the certificate issued by him and during trial so deposed.
3. Mr.J.K.Shah, learned APP for the applicant-State- complainant would contend that when complainant had gone to serve process of the Court and was performing his public duty, not only protest is lodged but server of the process was assaulted by iron rod, stick and was given bite, for which, sufficient evidence was produced and even usage of such articles causing injuries on the body of a person namely, the complainant and recovery thereof ought to have been believed by learned Sessions Judge. It is further submitted that in a case like this when public officers performing their public duty are thwarted by violent means, ordering acquittal by learned Judge inspite Page 2 of 4 R/CR.MA/21833/2014 ORDER of availability of sufficient evidence result into miscarriage of justice and would encourage law defying elements and, therefore, 13 witnesses and 7 documentary evidence came to be examined which only established criminal act of accused and therefore involved in crime beyond reasonable doubt and ought to have been punished accordingly.
4. Learned APP has made photocopies of oral as well as documentary evidence for our perusal and along with judgement and order of acquittal under challenge in accompanying appeal, for which, this application seeking leave is filed. Upon careful perusal of the above record, we have noticed undisputed facts about not mentioning the task of serving of warrant in a case diary, proper authorization to serve process of the Court, nature of recovery of usage of articles in commission of crime, engaging private vehicle in which the complainant along with fellow police personal travelled in the village of the accused where assault has taken place, for which no official authorization was obtained and further considering nature of injuries due to human bites and treatment taken by the accused vis-a-vis Section 320 pertaining to grievous injuries and punishment prescribed, we are unable to disagree with reasoning and findings so arrived by learned Sessions Judge in ordering acquittal of the accused based on well appreciated evidence on record. The involvement of the accused relying on the depositions of two doctors about nature of possible injuries based on medical certificate could not be explained properly and established much less proved, we are of the view that Page 3 of 4 R/CR.MA/21833/2014 ORDER grounds for grant of prayer as submitted by learned APP are not convincing so as to exercise the powers under Section 378 (1) (3) of the Code 1973 and accordingly, this application is rejected.
5. In view of the order passed in Criminal Misc. Application (For Leave To Appeal) No. 21833 of 2014 no order on Criminal Appeal No.1483 of 2014 and accordingly it stands disposed of.
(ANANT S.DAVE, J.) (G.R.UDHWANI, J.) SMITA Page 4 of 4