Oral Judgment

1. Feeling aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment and order of acquittal dated 30.08.2010 passed by rd the learned Special Judge and Presiding Officer, 3 Fast Track Court, Junagadh, in Atrocity Sessions Case No.2 of 2009 for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 504, 506(2) and 114 of the Indian Penal Code, Section 3(1)10 of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act, the appellant - State of Gujarat has preferred this appeal under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, "the Code").

2. The prosecution case, as unfolded during the trial before the lower Court, is that on 18.09.2007, at about 12:30 hours, when a complainant - Jagabhai Menandbhai Rathod, who was residing at Sukhpur with his family and doing labour work for his livelihood, went at the bank of Ojat river, where Savitaben, wife of his elder brother, was washing the clothes, at that time, Darbar Ranabhai, residing at : Sodvadar and one unknown person came there by holding stick and abuses them of their caste and thereafter, unknown persons inflicted stick blow on the right leg of the complainant; and that after abusing the complainant of the caste, Ranabhai caught shirt-collar (' Kathlo') and threatened and when Savitaben tried to intervened, threatened them to kill by abusing of her caste. Therefore, the complainant lodged a complaint against the present accused with the Keshod Police Station being C.R.- II No.3083 of 2007 for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 504, 506(2) and 114 of the Indian Penal Code, Section 3(1)10 of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act.

3. After investigation, sufficient prima facie evidence was found against the accused person/s and therefore charge- sheet was filed in the competent criminal Court. Since the offence alleged against the accused person/s was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the learned Magistrate committed the case to the Sessions Court where it came to be registered as Atrocity Sessions Case No.2 of 2009. The charge was framed against the accused person/s. The accused pleaded not guilty and came to be tried.

4. In order to bring home the charge, the prosecution has examined the witnesses and also produced various documentary evidence before the trial Court, which are described in the impugned judgment.

5. After hearing both the parties and after analysis of evidence adduced by the prosecution, the learned trial Judge acquitted the accused for the offences for which they were charged, by holding that the prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt.

6. Learned APP for the appellant - State has pointed out the facts of the case and having taken this Court through both, oral and documentary evidence, recorded before the learned trial Court, would submit that the learned trial Court has failed to appreciate the evidence in true sense and perspective; and that the trial Court has committed error in acquitting the accused. It is submitted that the learned trial Court ought not to have given much emphasis to the contradictions and/or omissions appearing in the evidence and ought to have given weightage to the dots that connect the accused with the offence in question. It is submitted that the learned trial Court has erroneously come to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove its case. It is also submitted that the learned Judge ought to have seen that the evidence produced on record is reliable and believable and it was proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused had committed an offence in question. It is, therefore, submitted that this Court may allow this appeal by appreciating the evidence led before the learned trial Court.

          7.1 As against that, learned advocate for the respondent/s would support the impugned judgment passed by the learned trial Court and has submitted that the learned trial Court has not committed any error in acquitting the accused. The trial Court has taken possible view as the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, it is prayed to dismiss the present appeal by confirming the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned trial Court.

          7.2 Though served, none appears for respondent No.3 - original complainant.

8. In the aforesaid background, considering the oral as well as documentary evidence on record, independently and dispassionately and considering the impugned judgment and order of the trial Court, the following aspects weighed with the Court :

          8.1 This Court has taken into consideration the testimony of the P.W.1 - Jagabhai Menandbha - Complainant, who has been examined vide Exh.17. In his examination-in- chief, he has stated that he has been assaulted by unidentified persons. He has deposed in his cross-examination that when there was altercation between him and the accused, nobody was present.

          P.W.7 - Savitaben Mansukhbhai has been examined vide Exh.28, who happened to be a sister-in-law ('Bhabhi') of the complainant.

          If the testimonies of P.W.1 - the Complainant and P.W.7 - Savitaben Mansukhbhai are taken into consideration, there are contradictions and discrepancies in their testimonies.

          8.2 In the first information report, which is produced vide Exh.19, the name of Ranubhai (Accused No.2) is shown as one of the accused and does not show the name of Hanubhai Bodubhai (Accused No.1).

          The learned Sessions Court has rightly taken into consideration that the prosecution has failed to justify the delay in filing the said complaint.

          If the testimony of P.W.5 - Dr.Vinodbhai Sukhabhai Chavda, who has been examined as P.W.6, is seen, it has come on record that the complainant had come with his nephew - Chandresh with police yadi, whereas the complainant in his cross-examination stated that he had gone to the hospital alone.

          8.3 The prosecution has also failed to prove the fact that at the time of alleged incident, Hanubhai Bodubhai had a stick in his hand. There is also contradiction to the fact that when did the witness Savitaben - P.W.7 took treatment at the hospital and as to who took Savitaben to the hospital. The prosecution has also failed to prove as to who was carrying the stick in his hand. The prosecution has also not proved that Savitaben was injured because of the assault by the accused. With respect to the abuse to the caste, there is nothing coming on the record. There are lot of contradictions in the said testimony of the witness. The prosecution has not been able to prove that the accused have committed the offence punishable under Sections 504 and 114 of Indian Penal Code.

           8.4 Therefore, the prosecution has not proved the case against the accused for the offence as alleged. Moreover, as per the observations made by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sajan Sakhariya Vs. State of Kerala and others reported in AIR 2024 SC 4557, every insult or intimidation would not amount to an offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, unless such insult or intimidation is started at a victim because he is a member of a particular Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes. Therefore, from the allegations made in the complaint, the prosecution has not proved that the accused is guilty of an offence under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

          8.5 The trial Court, while considering the evidences in detail, has observed that the prosecution has failed to prove the case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. While discussing the evidence in detail, the trial court has found that the only allegation against the accused is of speaking indecent words against the caste of the complainant. However from a perusal of records, it appears that the said utterance does not constitute an offence under the provisions of the Atrocities Act. The trial Court has gone into the evidence in detail and has come to the conclusion that the accused are not guilty of the alleged offence.

9. Further, learned APP is not in a position to show any evidence to take a contrary view in the matter or that the approach of the Court below is vitiated by some manifest illegality or that the decision is perverse or that the Court below has ignored the material evidence on record. In above view of the matter, this Court is of the considered opinion that the Court below was completely justified in passing impugned judgment and order.

10. Considering the impugned judgment, the trial Court has recorded that there was no direct evidence connecting the accused with the incident and there are contradictions in the depositions of the prosecution witnesses. In absence of the direct evidence, it cannot be proved that the accused are involved in the offence. Further, the motive of the accused behind the incident is not established. The trial Court has rightly considered all the evidence on record and passed the impugned judgment. The trial Court has rightly evaluated the facts and the evidence on record.

11. It is also a settled legal position that in acquittal appeal, the appellate court is not required to re-write the judgment or to give fresh reasoning, when the reasons assigned by the Court below are found to be just and proper. Such principle is down by the Apex Court in the case of State of Karnataka Vs. Hemareddy, reported in AIR 1981 SC 1417 wherein it is held as under:

          "... This court has observed in Girija Nandini Devi V. Bigendra Nandini Chaudhary (1967)1 SCR 93: (AIR 1967 SC 1124) that it is not the duty of the appellate court when it agrees with the view of the trial court on the evidence to repeat the narration of the evidence or to reiterate the reasons given by the trial court expression of general agreement with the reasons given by the Court the decision of which is under appeal, will ordinarily suffice."

12. Thus, in case the appellate court agrees with the reasons and the opinion given by the lower court, then the discussion of evidence at length is not necessary.

13. In the case of Ram Kumar v. State of Haryana, reported in AIR 1995 SC 280, Supreme Court has held as under:

          "The powers of the High Court in an appeal from order of acquittal to reassess the evidence and reach its own conclusions under Sections 378 and 379, Cr.P.C. are as extensive as in any appeal against the order of conviction. But as a rule of prudence, it is desirable that the High Court should give proper weight and consideration to the view of the Trial Court with regard to the credibility of the witness, the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused, the right of the accused to the benefit of any doubt and the slowness of appellate Court in justifying a finding of fact arrived at by a Judge who had the advantage of seeing the witness. It is settled law that if the main grounds on which the lower Court has based its order acquitting the accused are reasonable and plausible, and the same cannot entirely and effectively be dislodged or demolished, the High Court should not disturb the order of acquittal."

14. As observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajesh Singh & Others vs. State of Uttar Pradesh reported in (2011) 11 SCC 444 and in the case of Bhaiyamiyan Alias Jardar Khan and Another vs. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in (2011) 6 SCC 394, while dealing with the judgment of acquittal, unless reasoning by the trial Court is found to be perverse, the acquittal cannot be upset. It is further observed that High Court's interference in such appeal in somewhat circumscribed and if the view taken by the trial Court is possible on the evidence, the High Court should stay its hands and not interfere in the matter in the belief that if it had been the trial Court, it might have taken a different view.

15. In the case of Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka, reported in (2007) 4 SCC 415, the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed as under:

          "42. From the above decisions, in our considered view, the following general principles regarding powers of the appellate court while dealing with an appeal against an order of acquittal emerge:

          (1) An appellate court has full power to review, reappreciate and reconsider the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded.

           (2) The Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 puts no limitation, restriction or condition on exercise of such power and an appellate court on the evidence before it may reach its own conclusion, both on questions of fact and of law.

          (3) Various expressions, such as, "substantial and compelling reasons", "good and sufficient grounds", "very strong circumstances", "distorted conclusions", "glaring mistakes", etc. are not intended to curtail extensive powers of an appellate court in an appeal against acquittal. Such phraseologies are more in the nature of "flourishes of language" to emphasise the reluctance of an appellate court to interfere with acquittal than to curtail the power of the court to review the evidence and to come to its own conclusion.

          (4) An appellate court, however, must bear in mind that in case of acquittal, there is double presumption in favour of the accused.

           Firstly, the presumption of innocence is available to him under the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that every person shall be presumed to be innocent unless he is proved guilty by a competent court of law. Secondly, the accused having secured his acquittal, the presumption of his innocence is further reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by the trial court.

          (5) If two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the appellate court should not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial court."

16. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court while considering the scope of appeal under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 no case is made out to interfere with the impugned judgment and order of acquittal.

17. In view of above facts and circumstances of the case, on my careful re-appreciation of the entire evidence, I found that there is no infirmity or irregularity in the findings of fact recorded by learned trial Court and under the circumstances, the learned trial Court has rightly acquitted the respondents - accused for the elaborate reasons stated in the impugned judgment and I also endorse the view/finding of the learned trial Court leading to the acquittal.

18. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, the present Criminal Appeal fails to prove its case and the same deserves to be dismissed and is dismissed, accordingly. Record & Proceedings be remitted to the concerned trial Court forthwith.