( 1 ) THE present appeal is preferred by the appellants-orig. accused-convicts of Atrocity Case No. 61 of 1994 (hereinafter referred to as the appellants ) decided by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sabarkantha at Himatnagar. As stated by Mr. M. B. Farooqui, learned counsel appearing for the appellants, before commencement of the trial the appellant no. 1-Rafikbhai Sharifbhai Dodiya, expired at the young age of 35 to 36 years and his name came to be deleted. So the trial ultimately proceeded against the present appellant nos. 2 to 10. All of them have been held guilty vide judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 21st November 1994 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Himatnagar, in Atrocity Case No. 61 of 1994, for the charge of offences punishable under Sections 147, 149 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code and also under Section 3 (1) (10) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). Each of the appellants is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months for the offence punishable under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/-, and in default of payment of fine shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months. The appellant nos. 2 to 10 have also been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months and to pay a fine of Rs. 50/- and in default to make payment of fine shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven days, for the offences punishable under Section 147 of the Indian Penal Code. So far as the offence punishable under Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code is concerned, the appellant nos. 2 to 10 are sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/- and in default to make payment of fine, shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months. The appellants have also been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/- and in default of payment of fine shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months for the offence punishable under Section 3 (1) (10) of the Act. It is also ordered that the substantive sentence imposed shall run concurrently.

( 2 ) THE appellants have challenged the legality and validity of the judgment and order of conviction and sentence under challenge in this appeal on various grounds mentioned in paragraph no. 5 of the memo of the appeal. Mr. M. B. Farooqui, learned counsel appearing for the appellants, has taken me through the case placed by the prosecution and also the evidence led during the course of trial and has made following main submissions :

( 3 ) IT is submitted that all the appellants may be acquitted as there is no cogent and sufficient legal and convincing evidence on record to link the appellants with the crime for which they have been held guilty.

( 4 ) THE second fold of argument of Mr. Farooqui is that at least three names are emerging from record who allegedly had some scuffle with the complainant- Tulsibhai Sadabhai on the date of incident. One of them i. e. appellant no. 1-Rafikbhai Sharifbhai Dodiya has already expired and, therefore, the Court may acquit all the appellants. The complainant has attempted to concoct a false story to implicate the maximum number of persons as accused. Some of them are members of one family; and so the prosecution may be condemned for concocting a serious case against the appellants. The deposition of the witness who attempts to make exaggerations to implicate the accused persons may not be given any weightage, is the settled legal position. It is the duty of the Court to separate the grains from the chaff. But when such separation is not possible, the benefit may be given to the accused persons. So keeping this principle in mind, all the appellants may be acquitted.

( 5 ) THE third fold of argument of Mr. M. B. Farooqui is that the complainant gave the complaint in question on a very trivial issue with a view to carve

Click Here to Read the rest of this document