Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

8. I have heard the submissions made by the learned advocates for the respective parties and also gone through the oral and documentary evidence, independently and dispassionately. Considering the impugned judgment and order of the trial Court, the following aspects weighed with the Court;

8.1. The prosecution has mainly relied on the complaint that has been filed by Head Constable Ambalal Mohanbhai Parmar which has been produced vide Exhibit-21. It is the case of the prosecution that on 26.07.2009 when the complainant was serving as Head Constable at Tarsali Chowki, at 15:27 hours he received a Vardhi on his mobile phone from Makarpura Police Station P.S.O. Shri Babubhai Bhurabhai Patel that on Tarsali Ring Road, Motinagar-2 i.e. NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1363/2010 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/04/2026 undefined Manek Park Society Common Plot, four to five boys are sitting and consuming alcohol, therefore he was told to go there, and as the telephone at his Police Station was not working, he wrote the Vardhi in the telephone book, and along with the Telephone Deputy Police Constable Pankaj Dharamraj went on a motorcycle for investigation, and went to Motinagar Manek Park Society's Common Plot, where they could not find any person therefore, they searched the surrounding field, and in one room they found ten to twelve persons at 16:00 hours consuming alcohol, and therefore the complainant tried to find the panch witnesses, and seeing that, all the persons present over there who were taking alcohol started assaulting the complainant and the other Police Constable Pankaj Dharamraj, and one of the persons Baba Patil hit Pankaj Dharamraj with a heavy wooden stick on the right leg, the thumb of the left hand and on the forehead due to which the Constable Pankaj fell down on the floor, and as the complainant tried to intervene and save the constable Pankaj, they also assaulted the complainant. Thereafter, the complainant called Makarpura Police Station from his mobile to request them to send other Police Officers in view of the assault done by the accused on the NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1363/2010 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/04/2026 undefined complainant and Constable Pankaj Dharamraj, and thereafter P.S.I Gamit had come and had caught hold of one of the accused and the rest ran away. Thereafter, the names of the remaining five accused were revealed by one of the accused Kailash, who had been apprehended, and as Police Constable Pankaj Dharamraj was injured he was taken to the private hospital of Dr. Gupta for the treatment. 8.2. The prosecution has examined the complainant Ambalal Parmar, vide Exh-20, in his deposition he has stated that when he had left with Police Officer Pankaj Dharamraj, he was on the duty of telephone operator, he also stated that although, the telephone was not working but the wireless messages were working. He has also admitted that the person who is on duty as a telephone operator is not permitted to leave the Police Station. He has also informed that he did not get the police Vardhi about people drinking alcohol in a room or on the field.

8.7. Upon comparative appreciation of the evidence of the complainant Ambalal Mohanlal and injured witness Pankaj Dharmaraj, material contradictions are evident. The complainant states that no persons were found in the common plot of Manek Park Society and that, in a nearby hut, 10-12 persons were seen coming out, whereupon 4-5 persons assaulted him and Pankaj and all accused collectively attacked Pankaj. In contrast, Pankaj deposes that no persons were found in the common plot, but in a nearby doorless hut situated in a field, 10-12 persons were found consuming liquor, and upon inquiry of their names, Ambalal informed superior officers and called for additional police assistance. Further, the Investigating Officer J.D. Thakor at Exh. 42 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1363/2010 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/04/2026 undefined admits that PSI Gamit was not on station duty, and no evidence surfaced that he reached the spot with police staff or pursuant to any message. However, the complainant asserts that PSI Gamit arrived with police personnel in a Maruti van and other private vehicles upon request for assistance. Thus, material inconsistencies arise regarding the manner of incident, conduct of accused, and arrival of additional police, rendering the prosecution version doubtful. 8.8. On an overall reading of the depositions of the complainant Ambalal and Police Constable Pankaj Dharmaraj, further inconsistencies emerge. The complainant states that, considering the presence of a larger number of persons, he called for additional police assistance, whereupon PSI Gamit arrived in a Maruti van along with police staff and others in private vehicles, and at that time 8-10 persons attempted to flee. He further states that one accused, Kailash, was apprehended at the spot while the others escaped, and that both, he and injured Pankaj were taken to Gupta Hospital for treatment in the said Maruti van. However, Pankaj Dharmaraj, in his deposition, states that both police NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1363/2010 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/04/2026 undefined personnel had reached the indicated place in discharge of their duty on the basis of the message, but no persons were found there, and while proceeding further, they themselves went to a nearby field and discovered persons consuming liquor. Thus, there is inconsistency regarding the sequence of events, presence of accused, and subsequent actions taken at the spot.