CR.A/906/1994 1/6 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 906 of 1994 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 VITHHALBHAI PUNAMBHAI - Opponent(s) ========================================================= Appearance : MS DARSHNA PANDIT, APP, for Appellant(s) : 1, MR B.Y. MANKAD 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 4.6.1994, rendered CR.A/906/1994 2/6 JUDGMENT in Criminal Case No. 2023 of 1989 by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Petlad. The said case was registered against the respondent – accused for the offence punishable under Sections 254 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 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 JMFC is contrary to law and evidence on record. 2. According to the prosecution case the complainant Punjabhai Shanabhai Talpada (Vaghri) of Shihol filed complaint before Mehlav Police Station, District Kheda being CR No.I-84 of 1989 on 4.9.1989 for the offence u/s. 354 I.P. Code against the present respondent – accused. It is the case of the prosecution that the daughter of the complainant, namely, Divaliben, aged 7 years, was grazing the buffalo in the sim of Randol village and at that time the respondent – accused Vitthalbhai Punambhai Talpada (Vaghri) chased the prosecutrix just to take an advantage of loneliness and tried to outrage her modesty. The prosecutrix made hue and cry and therefore the people nearby the surrounding area rushed and, therefore, the respondent – accused ran away. Then the complaint was filed by the complainant against the respondent and he was arrested. Then the investigation was carried out and the respondent – accused was arrested and thereafter charge-sheet was filed against the CR.A/906/1994 3/6 JUDGMENT present respondent – accused before the trial Court. The charge was framed against the respondent – accused. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charges. Thereafter, the prosecution led oral as well as documentary evidence to prove its case against the present respondent. The statement of the respondent u/s.313 Cr.P.C. was also recorded. At the conclusion of the trial the learned trial 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. B.Y. Mankad, 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 mind properly and has not scrutinized the evidence produced by the prosecution; that the Judgment and order of the trial Court is not proper and is against the provision of law; it CR.A/906/1994 4/6 JUDGMENT is illegal and bad in eye of law; 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, but, the trial Court ought to have ignored the same and ought to have considered the case of the prosecution. 5. Learned Advocate Mr. Mankad, appearing on behalf of the respondent – accused contended that the trial Court has considered each and every aspects of the evidence produced by the prosecution. He has also contended that the panchnama has not supported the prosecution version and other evidence also has not proved the prosecution case. He has also contended that from the oral as well as documentary evidence of the mother and father of the prosecutrix it clearly transpires that it is purely contradictory with each other. He has also contended that there was no mark of injury on the body of the prosecutrix. He has also contended that as per the evidence the minor girl was pulled down by the respondent, however, no abrasion or any mark of injury was found on the body of the prosecutrix. 6. I have gone through the Judgment and order passed by the trial Court. I have also CR.A/906/1994 5/6 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 star witness minor Diwaliben has kept mum regarding the incident. Even the father and mother of the prosecutrix made contradictory statements. No doubt the prosecution has tried to prove its case against the present respondent, but due to the contradictory version and doubtful scenario which was produced by the witnesses it is established that the trial Court has considered the said aspect in favour of the present respondent. 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. In my view, 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 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 CR.A/906/1994 6/6 JUDGMENT 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 4.6.1994 passed by the learned J.M.F.C., Petlad, in Criminal Case No.2023 of 1989 acquitting the respondent – accused, is hereby confirmed. (Z.K.SAIYED, J.) sas