CR.A/2116/2006 1/9 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2116 of 2006 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J.R.VORA HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH ========================================================= 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? 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 ? 5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge? ========================================================= THE STATE OF GUJARAT - Appellant(s) Versus PRAGNESHKUMAR KISHORBHAI PATEL - Opponent(s) ========================================================= Appearance : MR AJ DESAI, ADDL. UBLIC PROSECUTOR for Appellant(s) : 1, None for Opponent(s) : 1, ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J.R.VORA and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH Date : 16/01/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT CR.A/2116/2006 2/9 JUDGMENT (Per : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH) 1. Present appeal is preferred by the State under Section 378 of the Criminal Procedure Code against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 28.07.2006 rendered by the learned Sessions Judge, Panchmahals in Special (Atro.) Case No.3 of 2006, whereby the present respondent being accused of the Special Case came to be acquitted by the learned trial Court for the offences punishable under Sections 3(1)(11) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act ('Atrocities Act' for short). 2. We have called Record and Proceedings of the case from the learned trial Court and same is available. Mr.A.J.Desai, learned APP appearing on behalf of the State has taken us to the relevant documentary as well as oral evidence produced on record. He has also taken us to the judgment and order passed by the learned trial Court. We have gone through the Record and Proceedings of the case as well as the judgment and order passed by the learned trial Court acquitting the respondent for the offence CR.A/2116/2006 3/9 JUDGMENT punishable under Sections 3(1)(11) of the Atrocities Act. We have heard Mr.A.J.Desai, learned APP appearing on behalf of the State in great detail and at length. 3. As per the prosecution case, complainant – Minaben wife of Vechatbhai Chimanbhai Nayak lodged a complaint on 28.01.2006 with Halol Police Station being C.R.No.I- 13 of 2006 against the respondent herein – accused for the offences punishable under Sections 3(1)(11) of the Atrocities Act and for the offfence alleged to have been happened on 10.11.2005 alleging inter-alia that her husband and her father- in-law were working in the field of the accused for one year and after completing the work they demanded to settle their account. It was also further averred in the complaint that the complainant had taken Rs.15,000/- on credit from the accused for the marriage function, which was decided to return at the time of settlement of their account; when the complainant went to pay the said money at that time accused refused to take money. It was further averred that thereafter, the complainant had also tried to CR.A/2116/2006 4/9 JUDGMENT give the said money for two to three times but the accused refused to accept the said money. It was alleged in the complaint that on 10.11.2005 when the complainant's husband and brother-in-law went for work in the field and she was coming from her work, and when she passed from the field of one Rameshbhai at that time nobody was present surrounding the field and the accused told her why your father-in-law has not given his money and if he does not want to pay the money come with me in nearby field and he caught her hand and thereafter the accused snatched her with force for the purpose of rape and because of that her clothes were torn. It was further averred that at that time her brother-in-law reached the place of the incident, accused ran away from there and abused them regarding their caste and threatened that if they would tell anybody about the said incident, he would not allow to live them. Therefore, it was further alleged that the accused has committed the offence punishable under Sections 3(1)(11) of the Atrocities Act. 4. Investigation was carried out by one CR.A/2116/2006 5/9 JUDGMENT Punamchand Sanabhai Baranda, Dy.S.P. Investigating Officer recorded the statements of various witnesses inclusive of the complainant as well as her brother- in-law Bhalsingbhai Chimanbhai and panchnama of place of offence was also prepared. Investigating Officer submitted charge-sheet in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Halol and as the case was sessions triable, same was committed to the learned Special Judge and Sessions Judge, Panchmahals. The learned Special Judge framed charges against the respondent and the respondent pleaded not guilty and therefore, prosecution examined as many as 8(eight) witness and produced on record voluminous documentary evidence. After evidence of the prosecution was over, incriminating circumstances appearing against the respondent was brought to the notice of the accused and his defence was of total denial in the statement recorded by the learned Sessions Judge under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. The learned trial Court thereafter heard the prosecution as well as defence and came to the conclusion of acquitting the respondent of the charges levelled against him and hence, this appeal. CR.A/2116/2006 6/9 JUDGMENT 5. Prosecution examined complainant herself Minaben Vechatbhai PW-1 at Exh.6. It was admitted that in all sum of Rs.9000/- (Rupees Nine Thousand only) was due and payable to the accused. Prosecution further examined Balsingbhai Chimanbhai – Brother in law of the complainant – PW – 2 at Exh.8. However, from the evidence it has come on record that he has not seen the accused and that when he reached the place of the offence, accused ran away and the complainant gave the name of the accused. Prosecution further examined one Vechatbhai Chimanbhai – PW- 3 at Exh.9; one Hatubhai Chimanbhai – PW -4 at Exh.11; Ratanbhai Shankarbhai – PW-9 at Exh.13; Dharmendrasinh Jaswantbhai Chavda – PW-6 at Exh.19; Manilal Purshottam – PW-7 at Exh.20 and Punamsing Sanabhai Baranda – PW-8 at Exh.22. Considering the fact that the alleged incident took place on 10.11.2005 and the complaint came to be field on 28.01.2006 i.e after a period of two and half months and even torn clothes were produced after a period of two and half months; considering the fact that there was no explanation for filing the complaint after a period of two and half months; and considering the CR.A/2116/2006 7/9 JUDGMENT fact that sum of Rs.9000/- was due and payable to the accused and on appreciation of the evidence, the learned trial Court acquitted the respondent for the charges levelled against him. 7. We have gone through the Record and Proceedings of the trial court minutely and threadbare. We have considered the vital features of the matter and reasonable probability arising out of the circumstances of the case. We have taken into account the appreciation of the evidence undertaken by the trial court and reasons assigned for the acquittal. We have taken into consideration the contentions raised by the learned Advocates for the respective parties in this matter. We have scanned carefully the evidence recorded during trial after re-appreciating it to access the reasons assigned by the learned trial judge for the acquittal. 8. The complainant has given complaint on 28.01.2006 for the offences alleged to have been happened on 10.11.2005 i.e. after a period of two and half months from the date of the alleged incident and CR.A/2116/2006 8/9 JUDGMENT for which there is no proper explanation at all for filing the complaint belatedly. It has also come on record and even admitted by the complainant in cross- examination that sum of Rs.9000/- was due and payable to the accused. It is also required to be noted that torn clothes of the complainant came to be produced after a period of two and half months and considering the over all evidence of the complainant who can be said to be sole witness to the incident, no case is made out against the respondent for the offences under Section 3(1)(11) of the Atrocities Act. The prosecution has failed to establish the case against the respondent and considering above facts and on appreciation of the evidence when the learned trial Court has acquitted the respondent for the offences punishable under Section 3(1)(11) of the Atrocities Act, it cannot be said that there is illegality committed by the learned trial Court acquitting the respondent and/or the order passed by the learned trial Court is contrary to the evidence and record. It cannot be said that the conclusion arrived at by the trial Court is perverse, manifestly erroneous, palpably wrong or demonstrably unsustainable. CR.A/2116/2006 9/9 JUDGMENT 9. The scope of appeal against the acquittal is well defined by law. The orders against the acquittal cannot lightly be interfered unless it is found by the appellate court that the reasoning assigned by the trial court and conclusions arrived were so perverse that in any manner it cannot stand to reason. As discussed above, while assessing the reasons assigned by the learned trial Judge and evaluating the conclusions, it is found that the learned trial Judge has rightly taken the view to acquit the accused for the charges levelled against them as prosecution could not establish the case against the respondent. The judgment and order impugned in this appeal, therefore, requires no interference. Hence, leave to appeal refused. Appeal dismissed. [J.R.Vora,J.] [M.R.Shah,J.] satish