CR.A/524/1993 1/7 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 524 of 1993 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE Z.K.SAIYED ========================================================= 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 ? ========================================================= STATE OF GUJARAT - Appellant(s) Versus ARJANBHAI JAYMALBHAI RABARI - Opponent(s) ========================================================= Appearance : MS DARSHANA PANDIT, APP, for Appellant(s) : 1, MR D.N.VAKIL for MR VIJAY H PATEL for Opponent(s) : 1, ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE Z.K.SAIYED Date : 08/01/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT 1. The present acquittal Appeal has been filed by the State, under Section 378 Cr.P.C., against the Judgment and order dated 1.10.1992, rendered in Special Case No.56 of 1992 by the learned CR.A/524/1993 2/7 JUDGMENT Special Judge, Banas Kantha at Palanpur. The said case was registered against the respondent – accused for the offence punishable under Sections 3(1)(10) of the Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and under Sections 3 & 7 of Civil Protection Act. The said Judgment of the Special Court has been challenged by the State on the ground that the Judgment and order passed by the learned Special Judge is contrary to law and evidence on record. 2. According to the prosecution case the complainant Shankerlal Govindram Kapdi (Harijan Sadhu), belonging to Schedule Caste, who was at the relevant time serving as teacher in Primary School at Ratanpur. The respondent – accused Arjanbhai Jaymalbhai Rabari was serving as Head Master in the said School. It is the prosecution case that as per the direction of the Primary Teachers Sangh the respondent asked the complainant to attend the School from 9.3.1992 to 14.3.1992 for stamping the Report and, therefore, the complainant went to School at 11.00 O'clock on 9.3.1992 for doing the said work. Thereafter the respondent also went to the school. At that time the respondent told the wife of the complainant – Savitaben that “he will beat Shankerlal”. Thereafter he told the complainant that “you Harijan Bava Dheda what you will do” and after saying so he gave CR.A/524/1993 3/7 JUDGMENT Chappal blows on the head and chick of the complainant and thereafter told the complainant that he may do what he likes and he is not afraid of anybody. As per the complainant's say at that time his wife, son, Vardhibhai Chhaganbhai and Jitabhai Karigar were present. So the complainant has filed the complaint at Thara Police Station, Thara, Dist. Banas Kantha, at 3.30 pm on the same day against the present respondent u/ss. 323, 504 I.P. Code and also under Section 3(1)(10) of the Atrocity Act and u/ss. 3 & 7 of the Civil Protection Act. Then the investigation was carried out, the respondent – accused was arrested. Thereafter, the charge-sheet was filed against the present respondent. Since the offences punishable u/s. 3(1)(10) of the Atrocities Act are triable by the Court of Sessions, the case was committed to the Court of Special Judge, Palanpur and the case was registered as Special Case No.56 of 1992. The charge was framed against the respondent – accused. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charges. Then the prosecution has led oral as well as documentary evidence to prove its case against the present respondent. During the trial the parties arrived at a compromise and so the present respondent as well as the original complainant filed compromise purshis, which is at page : 13, for the offence under sections 323 and 504 I.P. Code which are compoundable u/s.320 Cr.P.C. and, therefore, the CR.A/524/1993 4/7 JUDGMENT respondent – accused was acquitted from the offence punishable u/ss. 323 & 504 I.P. Code in exercise of powers u/s. 320 of Cr. P.C. by the Special Judge. But, so far as Section 3(1)(10) of the Atrocity Act and Section 3 & 7 are concerned, the same were not compoundable and, therefore, the trial Court has passed an order to proceed case against the respondent for the offence u/ss. 3(1)(10) of the Atrocities Act and Section 3 & 7 of the Civil Protection Act. Then the oral evidence was record. The statement of the respondent u/s.313 Cr.P.C. Was also record and then at the conclusion of the trial the learned Special Judge has found no substance in the prosecution case and, therefore, acquitted the respondent – accused from the said offence vide impugned Judgment. The said Judgment of the trial Court has been challenged by the State on the ground that the Judgment and order passed by the learned Special Judge is against the law and evidence on record. 3. I have heard learned APP Ms. Darshana Pandit on behalf of the Appellant – State Government and learned Advocate Mr. D.N.Vakil for Mr. Vijay Patel, appearing on behalf of the respondent – accused. I have also gone through the Judgment and order passed by the trial Court. 4. It is contended by learned APP Ms. Darshana Pandit that the trial Court has not applied its CR.A/524/1993 5/7 JUDGMENT mind properly and has not scrutinized the evidence produced by the prosecution; it is submitted that sufficient oral as well as documentary evidence was produced before the trial Court and it is true that there may be some contradictory evidence produced by the witnesses who are illiterate persons and the trial Court ought to have considered the case of the prosecution. 5. Learned Advocate Mr. Vakil, appearing on behalf of the respondent – accused contended that from Page-6 of the Judgment of the trial Court it is evident that though the incident occurred at 11.00 am the complaint was lodged at 8.30 pm and the complainant has not explained the delay caused in late filing of the complaint. The complainant was declared hostile by the prosecution and thereafter even in the cross examination by the prosecution, the prosecution has failed to collect the material evidence. Looking to the version of the complainant and the story of the prosecution both are contradictory in nature. Even the wife of the complainant and also the independent witnesses who were present at the time of occurrence of incident have also not supported the prosecution version. 6. I have gone through the Judgment and order passed by the trial Court. I have also CR.A/524/1993 6/7 JUDGMENT appreciated the documentary as well as oral evidence and also the legal submissions made by both the learned Advocates. It has come on record that the complainant as well as the prosecution witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution. No doubt the Investigating Agency has carried out the investigation in a proper way. But, when the star witnesses have not supported the prosecution case and as the complainant has filed compromise purshish and compounded the offence punishable u/ss. 323 & 504 I.P. Code before the trial is commenced then the conduct of the applicant can be considered as doubtful and from the reasons given by the trial Court it appears that the trial Court has considered the said issue of acquittal in a proper and legal manner. In my view the prosecution has failed to establish that the respondent has committed the offences alleged against him. It is the duty of the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, but the prosecution has failed in doing so. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the trial Court has rightly turned down the evidence and held that the present respondent has not committed any offence. It also appears that the trial Court has rightly held that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. 7. It is settled legal position that in acquittal CR.A/524/1993 7/7 JUDGMENT Appeal, the Appellate Court is not required to re-write the Judgment or to give fresh reasonings when the Appellate Court is in agreement with the reasons assigned by the trial Court acquitting the accused. In the instant case, this Court is in full agreement with the reasons given and findings recorded by the trial Court while acquitting the respondent – accused and adopting the said reasons and for the reasons aforesaid, in my view, the impugned Judgment is just, legal and proper and requires no interference by this Court at this stage. Hence, this Appeal requires to be dismissed. 8. In the result, the Appeal is hereby dismissed. The impugned Judgment and order dated 1.10.1992 passed by the learned Assistant Judge & Special Judge, Banas Kantha at Palanpur, in Special Case No.56 of 1992 acquitting the respondent – accused, is hereby confirmed. (Z.K.SAIYED, J.) sas