Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
A.P. THAKER, J.
Thakore Ambaji alias Abusini Chenaji – Appellant
Versus
State of Gujarat – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 433 of 2002, Criminal Misc. Application No. 1 of 2002
Decided On : 05-03-2020
Prevention of Atrocity Act, 1989 - Section 3(1)(x) - Indian Panel Code - Section 323 to Section 324 - Appeal aggrieved and dissatisfied with impugned judgment passed by Special Judge - Accused has been convicted with rigorous imprisonment of months and fine - Petition has been imposed appellant-accused has preferred this Appeal - Prosecution case is that complainant has filed a complaint narrating that present accused has inflicted knife blows on him - Therefore this complaint came to be registered against accused - After filing of complaint concerned Police Officer has investigated case and arrested accused - Having found sufficient evidence against accused Investigating Officer has filed a charge-sheet before concerned Court - As offence Atrocity Act is tribal by Special Court has committed case - Held, Court considering entire evidence on record it clearly transpires that the evidence on record is not cogent and reliable to convict accused of any offence as complainant though was knowing accused from very beginning as they are residing in same vicinity has not given name of father of accused - Court also appears from record that one person who is said to be person who was sitting with complainant on heap of pipe has not been examined by prosecution - Of course it court is statement of complainant that he has not given name of said person to police - Court is responsibility of Investigating Officer to investigate matter from all angles when complainant himself has stated in his evidence that one other person was there at time of incident evidence of other independent person is required - Petition for enhancement of sentence is disposed of accordingly - Appellant-accused is acquitted of all charges leveled against him - Bail bond any stands cancelled - Appeal allowed (Paras 26 and 28)
Facts of the Case:
Prosecution case is that the complainant has filed a complaint narrating that the present accused has inflicted knife blows on him. Therefore, this complaint came to be registered against the accused under Section 3(1)(x) of the Prevention of Atrocity Act, 1989 as well as under Section 324 of IPC.
Finding of the Court:
Court considering entire evidence on record it clearly transpires that the evidence on record is not cogent and reliable to convict accused of any offence as complainant though was knowing accused from very beginning as they are residing in same vicinity has not given name of father of accused - Court also appears from record that one person who is said to be person who was sitting with complainant on heap of pipe has not been examined by prosecution - Of course it court is statement of complainant that he has not given name of said person to police - Court is responsibility of Investigating Officer to investigate matter from all angles when complainant himself has stated in his evidence that one other person was there at time of incident evidence of other independent person is required - Petition for enhancement of sentence is disposed of accordingly - Appellant-accused is acquitted of all charges leveled against him - Bail bond any stands cancelled.
Result: Appeal allowed
JUDGMENT :
A.P. THAKER, J.
1. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment dated 5.3.2002 passed by the Special Judge, Mehsana in Special (Atrocity) Case No. 115 of 2000 whereby the present accused has been convicted under Section 324 of the IPC with rigorous imprisonment of 3 months and fine of Rs. 500/- in default thereof imprisonment of 15 days has been imposed, the appellant-accused has preferred this Appeal.
2. It appears from the record that while admitting the Appeal, this Court has also taken suo-motu petition as to enhancement of sentence for enhancing conviction and sentence from Section 323 to Section 324 of IPC.
3. The brief facts of the prosecution case is that the complainant has filed a complaint narrating that the present accused has inflicted knife blows on him. Therefore, this complaint came to be registered against the accused under Section 3(1)(x) of the Prevention of Atrocity Act, 1989 as well as under Section 324 of IPC.
3.1 After filing of the complaint, the concerned Police Officer has investigated the case and arrested the accused. Having found sufficient evidence against the accused, the Investigating Officer has filed a charge-sheet before the concerned Court. As the offence under the Atrocity Act is triable by Special Court, the trial Court has committed the case to the Special Court i.e. Sessions Court, wherein it was registered as Special (Atrocity) Case No. 115/2000.
4. The learned Special Judge has framed charges against the accused which was explained to the accused. The accused has denied of having committed any offence and pleaded for trial. Accordingly, the prosecution has led following oral and documentary evidences:-
Oral Evidences:
| PW No. | Name | Relation | Exhibit |
| PW-1 | Dr. Kantilal Madhabhai Parmar | Medical Officer | Exh.9 |
| PW-2 | Dhirajkumar Jivanbhai Soni | Medical Officer | Exh.11 |
| PW-3 | Revabhai Manubhai Bhangi | Complainant | Exh.13 |
| PW-4 | Niruben Babulal | Brother | Exh.14 |
| PW-5 | Pravinbhai Pitambarbhai | Panch Witness | Exh.15 |
| PW-6 | Bharatsinh Laxmansinh | Panch Witness | Exh.17 |
| PW-7 | Mahendrakumar Hargovandas | Panch Witness | Exh.18 |
| PW-8 | Lavjiji Ratuli | Police Witness | Exh.19 |
| PW-9 | Mohmadhussain Hajikhan | A.S.I. Police Witness | Exh.21 |
| PW-10 | Vijaysinh Motisinh | Investigating Officer | Exh.23 |
| PW-11 | Arjun Girdharilal Mistry | Investigating Officer | Exh.26 |
Documentary Evidences:
| S. No. | Documents | Exhibit |
| 1 | Medical Certificate issued by Visnagar Hospital | Exh.10 |
| 2 | Medical Certificate issued by Mehsana Hospital of Bhangi Revabhai | Exh.12 |
| 3 | Inquest Panchnama | Exh.16 |
| 4 | Depute Report | Exh.20 |
| 5 | The original complaint of the complainant | Exh.22 |
| 6 | Panchnama of weapon used by the accused | Exh.24 |
| 7 | Caste certificate of complainant Revabhai | Exh.25 |
4.1 After closure of the evidence of the prosecution, the learned trial Court has also recorded further statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code wherein also he has denied of having committed any offence. The defence has not examined any witness.
5. After hearing both the sides, the learned Special Judge has held that the offence under the Atrocity Act is not proved and considering the material on record, the accused is convicted under Section 323 instead of 324, holding that the injury sustained by the complainant was not serious but it was a simple injury and accordingly the Sessions Judge has passed the Order imposing the sentence as referred to hereinabove.
6. Being aggrieved with the impugned judgment passed by the learned Sessions Judge, the learned advocate for the appellant has preferred the Criminal Appeal No. 433 of 2002.
7. This Court has taken the matter suo-motu for convicting the accused under Section 324 instead of 323.
8. Heard Mr. C.B. Patel, learned advocate for the a
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
