Point of Law : It is cardinal principle of criminal justice system that when there is satisfactory explanation for non-examination of independent witnesses, conviction can be based solely on the testimony of official witnesses if evidence of such official witnesses inspires confidence

JUDGMENT :

1. Present appeal has been filed by the appellant – State under Section 378(1)(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 challenging the judgment and order dated 26.02.2010, passed in Special Case No. 89 of 2008 by the learned Special Judge, Kachchh-Bhuj, recording the acquittal.

2. The facts, in brief, are that complainant – Devjibhai Shankarbhai Makwana lodged a complaint before the Kothara Police Station, District: Kachchh-Bhuj against the respondent – Harpalsinh Vikramsinh Jadeja for the offences punishable under Sections 332, 323 and 506(2) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 stating therein that on 19.09.2007 at about 14:30 hours when the complainant, who belongs to the scheduled caste, was at his office, performing his duties as Talati cum Mantri at Vinzan Gram Panchayat, respondent came there and asked the complainant to sign one document possessed by him. He further stated to draw the panchnama as Narmada water pipeline passes through his land and some damage was caused in the land, to which, on the complainant replying that he could not sign the panchnama, the respondent got excited and stopped the work of the complainant and thereafter, holding the shirt of the complainant, slapped him on his right side cheek. One Peon namely Jakabbhai Tamachi intervened and saved the complainant. However, the respondent gave filthy abuses and used derogatory words against the caste of the complainant and also threatened him to kill. Thus, respondent committed the offence in question for which, FIR came to be registered against him.

2.1 Upon such FIR being filed, investigation started and the Investigating Officer recorded statements of as many as 10 witnesses and produced certain documentary evidence and after completion of the investigation, Charge-sheet was filed against the accused persons for the offences in question. The case was committed to the Special Court and the learned Judge trial Judge framed the Charge. Since the accused did not plead guilty, trial was proceeded against the accused. Vide impugned judgment and order dated 26.02.2010, the learned trial Judge acquitted the accused person. Being aggrieved by the same, the State has preferred the present appeal.

3. Heard, learned APP Mr. Hardik Soni for the appellant – State and learned advocate Mr. Rahul K. Dave with learned advocate Mr. Kirtidev R. Dave for the for the respondent.

3.1 The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has mainly contended that the learned trial Judge has erred in holding that the prosecution has failed to prove it case beyond reasonable doubt. He submitted that the impugned judgment of the trial Court is based on presumptions and inferences and thereby, it is against the facts and the evidence on record. The learned APP further submitted that the learned trial Judge has failed to appreciate the evidence on record in its true and proper perspective and thereby, has erred in recording the acquittal of the respondent – accused.

3.2 The learned APP further contended that the learned trial Judge has failed to appreciate the evidence of complainant - PW-1 Devjibhai Shankarbhai Makwana, Exh. 1, who has supported the prosecution case in toto and accordingly, there was no reason for the learned trial Judge to disbelieve such a crucial evidence on record. The learned APP submitted that the learned trial Judge has taken a very hypertechnical view in the matter inasmuch as for a minor contradiction in the deposition of the complainant, which in fact cannot be termed as contradiction, viz., the complainant has stated that the respondent had given him “thosa” blow, whereas, in his complaint, Exh. 11, he has stated that the respondent had “slapped” him, the case of the prosecution cannot be thrown out and such an aspect, the learned trial Judge has failed to appreciated and thereby, has erred materially in holding that there is some omission/ contradiction in