Point of Law: Where trial court allows itself to be beset with fanciful doubts, rejects creditworthy evidence for slender reasons and takes a view of evidence which is but barely possible, it is obvious duty of High Court to interfere in interest of justice, lest administration of justice be brought to ridicule.

JUDGMENT :

1. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the judgment and order dated 24.08.2007 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge and Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court, Deesa in Special (Atro) Case No.67 of 2007 , wherein the facts of the present case are as under:

According to complainant, it is the case of prosecution that on 26.01.2007 at about noon hours, while complainant was present at his home, all the accused persons formed unlawful assembly with clear intention to insult the complainant in pubic at large, called the complainant out of his house and gave filthy abuses relating to his caste by using words like “sala dhedha” and told that “why are you saying in public that we are dealing in liquor”. At the relevant point of time, complainant told that he had not told such fact to any person, and therefore, all the accused person got excited and attempted to attack upon complainant. It is stated that as complainant was afraid, he shouted for help and therefore, persecution witnesses Dalchhabhai, Babubhai, Bhamarsinh Savji Parmar and Uttamsinh Karmansinh Parmar etc. came to the place of incident and saved the complainant from further beatings. It is further the case of prosecution that while departing from place of incident, accused persons have also administered threat to cause death of complainant. Therefore, complainant approached before D.S.P., Palanpur and filed complaint against respondents. It is further the case of prosecution that as D.S.P., Palanpur requested the complainant to file complaint against respondents before Pathavada Police Station, the complainant approached before Pathavada Police Station and lodged complaint against respondents, which was registered as C.R. No. I-3 of 2007 for the alleged offences under Sections 143, 504, 506(2) of the I.P.C. and Section 3(1)(10) of Prevention of Atrocities Act. The police recorded the statement of witnesses and after thorough investigation, as there was a sufficient evidence connecting respondents with offences produced in this case, charge-sheet was filed in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Dhanera. The offence committed by the accused person was exclusively triable by the court of learned Special Court, same was committed to the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge and Presiding Officer, Deesa for trial and numbered as Special (Atrocity) Case No.67 of 2007, wherein the respondents have not pleaded guilty to the charges levelled against them and claimed to be tried. Before trial court, the prosecution has examined complainant, police witnesses and panch witnesses, who were supporting the case of prosecution. The prosecution has also relied upon documentary evidence in support of oral evidence laid by the prosecution before the trial court. The learned Judge after appreciating necessary evidence laid down by the prosecution was pleased to acquit the respondents by his judgment and order of acquittal dated 24.08.2007 for the offences with which they were charged and hence, the appellant-State of Gujarat has preferred present appeal against order of acquittal.

2. This Court has heard the arguments advanced by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor Ms. Jirga Jhaveri for the appellant-State.

3. Notice is duly served upon respondent Nos.1 to 7, none has chosen to appear before this Court. On 15.06.2022, this Court has given the last chance. Today also, none is appeared and therefore, since the matter is of the year 2008, matter is heard finally.

4. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor Ms. Jirga Jhaveri has drawn the attention of this Court to the judgment and order dated 24.08.2007 recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge and Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court, Deesa and urged that the learned Additional Sessions Judge and Presiding Officer has committed error in arriving acquittal of the accused persons since prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable doubt, and therefore, appeal may kindly be allowed and the order may k