Gujarat High Court
Bhurabhai Meghjibhai Parmar vs State Of Gujarat & on 9 January, 2013
Author: G.R.Udhwani
Bench: G.R.Udhwani
BHURABHAI MEGHJIBHAI PARMAR....Applicant(s)V/SSTATE OF GUJARAT R/CR.RA/621/2007 JUDGEMNT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 621 of 2007 FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.UDHWANI ================================================================ 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? NO 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? NO 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? NO 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 ? NO 5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ? NO ================================================================ BHURABHAI MEGHJIBHAI PARMAR....Applicant(s) Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & 2....Respondent(s) ================================================================ Appearance: MR MANOJ SHRIMALI, ADVOCATE for the Applicant(s) No. 1 MR PM LAKHANI, ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 2 - 3 MRS RP LAKHANI, ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 2 - 3 MR KP RAVAL, ADDL.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the Respondent(s) No. 1 ================================================================ CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.UDHWANI Date : 09/01/2013 ORAL JUDGMENT
1. The petitioner who was one of the witness in Special Atrocity Case No.41 of 2006 instituted for the offences under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities Act) 1989 (for short the Act ), as also Sections 323, 504, 506(2) and 114 of Indian Penal Code (for short IPC ) is aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 31.7.2007 passed by learned Special Judge, District Jamnagar acquitting the accused persons who were alleged to have abused and beaten up the petitioner and his father, who was a complainant while they were travelling in a bus on 20.9.2005 to Jamnagar.
2. After consideration of the record of the case, it is seen from the complaint and it is not disputed that the complainant only mentioned that the victims were abused by accused persons without mentioning as to what words were used so as to attract the provisions of the Atrocities Act. Under such circumstances, the learned trial Judge, after giving benefit of doubt to the accused persons, acquitted them. Learned counsel for the petitioner is unable to contend that there was any material before the court below to hold the accused persons guilty for the offences punishable under the Atrocities Act. In this view of the matter, this Court is unable to find any miscarriage of justice in the finding that has been reached by the court below.
3. So far as the assault on the accused persons is concerned, the trial court found variations in the number of the accused persons involved. While the complainant involved four persons, some of the witnesses examined before the trial court involved only two persons and yet another witness involved only one person. Under such circumstances, and after appreciating the evidence of witnesses examined before it, as also the testimony of the Investigating Officer, the trial court did not deem it fit to rely upon any of the witnesses and extended the benefit of doubt even in case of the offences punishable under the aforesaid provisions of IPC. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the trial court was in serious error as it has misread oral as well as medical evidence inasmuch as it was established that the victims were beaten up. However, in the aforesaid scenario, it was difficult for the trial court to find any particular person guilty of the offence under provisions of IPC as aforesaid, as different witnesses involved different number of persons as accused. This Court is conscious of the fact that it is not sitting in appeal, and if the trial court has, within its jurisdiction, on the basis of evidence before it, comes to the conclusion as aforesaid, this Court is unable to find that such findings reached by the court below has caused any miscarriage of justice so as to enable this Court to interfere in the factual findings recorded by the court below after properly appreciating the evidence.
4. Under the aforesaid circumstances, this Court is unable to find any merit in the revision application. The Revision Application, therefore, fails and is dismissed. Rule is discharged with no order as to costs.
(G.R.UDHWANI, J.) syed/ Page 3 of 3