SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(Guj) 16

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
RAJENDRA M. SAREEN, J.
STATE OF GUJARAT - Appellant
Versus
HARISANG VAJESANG RANA & others - Respondent
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 794 of 2008
Decided On : 06-01-2022

Advocates Appeared:
For The Appellant : MR RC KODEKAR APP.
For The Respondent: MR KIRTIDEV R DAVE, MR P B KHAMBHOLJA, MR RAHUL K DAVE

Headnote:

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 372(1)(8) - Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities Act), 1989 - Sections 3(1)(10) - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 323, 504, 506(2) and 114 – Criminal Intimidation and Grievous hurt - Appeal against Acquittal - Caused damage to crops - When complainant had gone to his field for observing of cotton crops, he found all 3 accused persons had come in jeep with an intention to damage pipeline set by complainant and other village people before ensuing of rainy season - Complainant, therefore, asked all 3 accused persons that if (as there were causing damage their pipeline for last 2 years) they went to damage pipeline as there were causing damage their pipeline for last 2 years, complainant would not set pipeline - Accused No.1 again abated him saying foul words as regards caste of complainant and slapped on left ear and again on left cheek of complainant - At that time, accused No.2 was pulling hair of complainant and thereafter, accused No.3 was giving kick and fist blows to complainant - Held, There is only oral evidence of the complainant himself, which is also suffering from infirmities, as stated hereinabove. No other evidence has been brought on record to bring home case of the prosecution. Considering te overall evidence on record, the possibility of false implication of the respondents – original accused cannot be ruled out - Special Court, while interpreting provisions contained in sections 504 and 506(2) of IPC, has come to conclusion that prosecution has failed to prove ingredients of the said provisions of IPC - prosecution has failed to prove the ingredients of the provisions of 323 of the Indian Penal Code - Criminal Appeal dismissed.

ORDER :

1. This Appeal is filed by the appellant under Section 372(1)(8) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 against the judgment and order dated 30.08.2007 passed by the Special Judge, Bharuch in Special Atrocity Case No.7 of 2006 whereby the Special Judge has acquitted the respondents – original accused from the charges levelled against them for the offences under sections 323, 504, 506(2) and 114 of Indian Penal Code and under sections 3(1)(10) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities Act), 1989.

2. As per the case of the prosecution, the complainant Raghabhai Mathurbhai Vasava is residing at Hirakui (Ranipura), Taluka Amod, District Bharuch with his family. He was possessing 7 acres of land situated on both sides of Hirakui-Dadapor Road on the canal of village sim.

2.1. As the per the version of the prosecution for last 3 years since there is no water in the Hirakui Minor Canal, which is passing through the village sim, the complainant and other Agriculturist were getting water from the drainage situated near water canal with the help of Bak-nadi from the main canal. For getting water from the main canal, they used to dig the pit in the road during the winter and summer season, putting the pipeline in the pit. They used to get the water as such since last 2 years. However, accused no. 1 used to dig the whole road before rainy season and also damaged the pipeline set by complainant and other village people on account of which the rainy water gathered in the field of the complainant and other village people which, in turn, caused damage to the crops standing in their field.

2.2. It is further case of the prosecution that on 06.11.2005 at about 1:00 O'clock when the complainant had gone to his field for observing of cotton crops, he found all the 3 accused persons viz. Harisang Vajesang Rana Muslim Garasiya, Ilyash Pathubha Rana Muslim Garasiya and Bachubhai Vajesang Rana Muslim Garasiya. In this case, the complainant initially has disclosed the name of accused no. 2 Imtiaz Pathubha Rana, whose correct name is being disclosed by the complainant later on as Imtiaz Rana. All the 3 accused persons had come in the jeep with an intention to damage the pipeline set by the complainant and other village people before ensuing of rainy season. The complainant, therefore, asked all the 3 accused persons that if (as there were causing damage their pipeline for last 2 years) they went to damage the pipeline as there were causing damage their pipeline for last 2 years, the complainant would not set the pipeline. Upon hearing so, all the 3 accused persons got excited and started giving foul abuses related to the mother and sister of the complainant, therefore, the complainant asked them not to give foul abuses. However, accused No.1 again abated him saying foul words as regards caste of the complainant and slapped on the left ear and again on the left cheek of the complainant. Meanwhile, the village people Nagjibhai Jinabhai Vasava, Gordhanbhai Mahijibhai Vasava, Ratilal Devjibhai Vasava and Ratilal Vithhalbhai Vasava, who were present in their respective field, approached the complainant. At that time, accused No.2 Bachubha Vajesang was pulling the hair of the complainant and thereafter, accused No.3 was giving kick and fist blows to the complainant. However, the village people intervened and rescued the complainant from further blows. The accused started going away, however, while going, accused No.1 was threatening the complainant abusing him that if again the complainant will go against them, they would kill him. Thereafter, the complainant filed the complaint with Amod Police Station for the offences punishable under sections 323, 504, 506(2) and 114 of Indian Penal Code and under sections 3(1)(10) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities Act), 1989 on 6/11/2005.

2.3. The investigating officer, after investigation, filed chargesheet before the competent court and the same was regi

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top