Gujarat High Court
Hasmukhbhai Shankerbhai Savanshah vs State Of Gujarat & on 14 February, 2013
Author: Harsha Devani
Bench: Harsha Devani
HASMUKHBHAI SHANKERBHAI SAVANSHAH....Applicant(s)V/SSTATE OF GUJARAT R/CR.MA/2317/2013 ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL) NO. 2317 of 2013 ================================================================ HASMUKHBHAI SHANKERBHAI SAVANSHAH....Applicant(s) Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & 1....Respondent(s) ================================================================ Appearance: MR MOHSIN M HAKIM, ADVOCATE for the Applicant(s) No. 1 PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the Respondent(s) No. 1 ================================================================ CORAM: HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE HARSHA DEVANI Date : 14/02/2013 ORAL ORDER
1) By this application under section 378(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the applicant (original complainant) seeks special leave to appeal against the judgment and order dated 5th December, 2012 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge & Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Kapadvanj in Criminal Case No.1653 of 2007, whereby the respondent No.2-accused has been acquitted of the offences punishable under sections 503, 504 and 506(2) of the Indian Penal Code.
Mr. V. A. Mansuri, learned advocate for the applicant vehemently assailed the impugned judgment and order by submitting that the learned Judge has failed to appreciate the evidence on record in proper perspective while arriving at the conclusion that the charges levelled against the accused had not been proved. The attention of the court was invited to the depositions of the witnesses and, more particularly, to the testimonies of the complainant-Bharatkumar Ramanlal (exhibit-73), Kalekha Pujekha Pathan (exhibit-76), Salimbhai Musabhai (exhibit-79) and Shankarji Malaji Rathod (exhibit-133) to submit that apart from the other witnesses, these witnesses had fully supported the prosecution case and had duly proved that the accused had hurled abuses at the complainant which would fall within the ambit of section 504 of the Indian Penal Code as well as had intimidated the members of the staff of the G.E.B. and had also threatened to kill the complainant. Under the circumstances, the offences under sections 503, 504 and 506(2) of the Indian Penal Code having been clearly established, the learned Judge was not justified in acquitting the accused.
3) The prosecution case is that the first informant Hasmukhbhai S. Shravanshah had lodged a complaint before the learned Additional Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Kapadvanj against the respondent-accused being Court Inquiry No.3 of 2006 alleging commission of the offences punishable under sections 503, 504, 506(2) of the Indian Penal Code. It was alleged that on 25th December, 2005 at 11:30 hours, the accused came to the house of the complainant at P.R. Colony, Opp: M.K. Nagar, Mauje Kapadvanj, where the staff of the G.E.B. was changing the electricity line of the complainant, at that point of time, the accused had, in an inebriated condition, hurled filthy abuses and said that the buffalo belongs to the person who wields the stick and that the police could not harm him. That whatever he wanted would happen and that nobody is to be given an electricity connection from the said electric pole. After saying so, in the presence of the staff of the G.E.B., he hurled abuses and threatened to get the premises vacated as well as to kill the complainant and, in this way, committed the offence punishable under sections 503, 504 and 506(2) of the Indian Penal Code.
4) During the course of trial, the prosecution had examined, in all, six witnesses and had produced certain documentary evidence on record. Upon conclusion of the trial, the learned Judge, after appreciating the evidence on record, came to the conclusion that the prosecution had not established the charges levelled against the accused beyond reasonable doubt and acquitted him.
5) A perusal of the record reveals that the complainant had deposed that he was an advocate registered with the Bar Council of Gujarat and that on 24th December, 2005, the electricity supply of the house of the complainant had stopped, hence, he had given a complaint in this regard. Such written complaint had been given to the G.E.B., Kapadvanj, pursuant to which, on 25th December, 2005, the employees from the G.E.B. Office at Kapadvanj had come for repairing the electricity line, whereupon, the accused, who was residing next to the complainant, hurled filthy abuses and threatened to kill him. He had also threatened to get the house vacated and after saying so, had said that the buffalo belongs to the person who wields the stick. The complainant has further deposed in terms of what is stated by him in the complaint. In his cross-examination, he has admitted that the accused is his distant uncle and that the house of his uncle Dharmaji is situated next to his house.
6) The prosecution has also examined one Bharatkumar Ramanlal Joshi at exhibit-73. He was discharging duties with the M.G.V.C.L. at Kapadvanj at the time of the incident. He has deposed that on 25th December, 2005 on Sunday, they had gone to the house of the complainant pursuant to an application made by him with the G.E.B. Office. As the service wire was required to be changed, they had gone to the residential premises of the complainant. Lineman K.P. Pathan and Karansinh Parmar had also accompanied him. When they went to the house of the complainant, one of his uncles was also present. When they had changed the old wire, an individual had come there and informed them that the plot belonged to him. However, at that point of time, they had already changed the old wire and replaced it with a new one and, hence, they had left the premises. Other than that, nothing else had happened. He has further stated that at the time of the incident, there was an exchange of words with the complainant regarding ownership of the plot. In his cross-examination, he has accepted that there was an ordinary exchange of words between the complainant and the accused and that nothing else had transpired.
7) Karanbhai Pratapbhai Parmar has been examined at exhibit-74. He has deposed that on 24th December, 2005, an application was received from the complainant Hasmukhbhai, on the basis of which, on 25th December, 2005 at 3 O clock in the afternoon, they had gone to Karsanpura road, where the service wire was required to be changed. At that time, Bharatbhai Ramanbhai had also gone along with him and the complainant Hasmukhbhai was also present at home. Three to four persons were also present there and since the electric supply was off, they had cut the electric connection, at which point of time, an individual had come there and there was an ordinary exchange of words, after which, the electricity connection was made at the original place. In his cross-examination, he had accepted that except for an ordinary exchange of words, nothing else had happened.
8) Witness Kalekha Pathan has been examined at exhibit-76 who has deposed that he was discharging duties at the G.E.B. Office, Town Hall. On the basis of the application made by the complainant on 25th December, 2005, they had gone for repairing as the service wire had got burnt. At that point of time, Karansinh, Bharatbhai and rickshaw driver Salimbhai, in all four persons, had gone. As there was no electric supply at Hasmukhbhai s house, the connection was checked and it was found that there was no electric supply, hence, they had checked the pole and found that the wire was burnt. The wire was taken down, at which point of time, an individual had come there and started hurling abuses and had said that the wire from his land is not to be taken down and started hurling abuses at the complainant and threatened to kill him and had also said that he would not permit them to take the wire from there. Hence, they had not changed the service wire. In his cross-examination, he has accepted that a crowd had gathered there and the people present there had referred to the accused as Gunvantbhai, hence, he had come to know of his name. He has also accepted that at the said place, no unprecedented incident had taken place.
9) Witness Salimbhai Musabhai, who has been examined at exhibit-79, has deposed that he was driving a rickshaw for G.E.B. on voucher basis. On the date of the incident, the employees of the G.E.B. had gone to the site in his rickshaw for the purpose of changing the wire at the house of the complainant-Hasmukhbhai. He has deposed that when the wire was being changed by climbing on the pole, the accused had come there and said that the pole had been put up at his cost, hence, no one else s wire was to be connected there. The accused got provoked and hurled filthy abuses at the complainant and also threatened to kill him, due to which, people from the neighbourhood had gathered there and they had left the scene of the incident. In his cross-examination, he has accepted that people from the neighbourhood had gathered there.
10) Shankarbhai Malaji, the father of the complainant, has been examined at exhibit-113. He has fully supported the case of the complainant.
11) In the light of the evidence which has come on record, what is required to be examined is as to whether the offences under sections 503, 504 and 506(2) of the Indian Penal Code can be said to have been established. As can be seen from the depositions of the independent witnesses, namely, Bharatkumar Joshi and Karanbhai Pratapbhai Parmar, who are employees of the G.E.B., they have stated that except for an exchange of words, nothing else had happened. Even, witness Kalekha, who has deposed regarding threats being administered to the accused, in his cross-examination, has accepted that no unprecedented event had taken place. Thus, from the testimonies of the independent witnesses, it is established that except for an ordinary exchange of words, no other incident had happened at the time of the alleged offence.
12) As can be seen from the impugned judgment and order, the learned Judge has extensively referred to the evidence on record and has given detailed reasons for the conclusions arrived at by her. In the light of the evidence, which has come on record, this court is in full agreement with the reasoning adopted by the learned Judge and does not find any reason to take a different view. On the evidence, which has come on record, it is not possible to state that the prosecution has established the charges levelled against the accused. Under the circumstances, there being no infirmity in the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Judge, there is no warrant for a detailed examination of the evidence on record.
13) In the aforesaid premises, leave is refused and the application is rejected.
(HARSHA DEVANI, J.) Vahid Page 8 of 8