State of Gujarat vs Deepakbhai Govindbhai Vadodariya

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2022 Supreme(Guj) 781

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
ASHOKKUMAR C. JOSHI, J.
State of Gujarat - Appellant
Versus
Deepakbhai Govindbhai Vadodariya - ResXpondent
Criminal Appeal No. 688 of 2008
Decided On : 11-07-2022

Advocates appeared:
Jirga Jhaveri, Advocate

Headnote:
Indian Penal Code, 1860 -Sections 323, 324, 504 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 -Section 378(1) (3), 378, 417, 161 - Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 -Section 3(1)(10) - Bombay Police Act, 1951 -Section 37(1), 135 - Punishment for voluntarily causing hurt - Voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or mean - Offence punishable - Power to appoint place of imprisonment - Examination of witnesses by police - Quashing of the criminal complaint- Whether in arriving at a finding of fact, trial court had failed to take into consideration admissible evidence and/or had taken into consideration evidence brought on record contrary to law - Similarly, wrong placing of burden of proof may also be a subject-matter of scrutiny by appellate court –Held, Judge has observed that on considering evidence on record there appears no trustworthy evidence on record to prove charge levelled against accused and prosecution has failed to bring home charges levelled against accused inasmuch as ingredients of offence alleged are not fulfilled - This Court has gone through in detail impugned judgment and order and found that learned trial Judge has meticulously considered depositions of all witnesses and came to conclusion that prosecution has failed to prove case against accused beyond reasonable doubt and in considered opinion of this Court, learned trial Judge has rightly come to such a conclusion, which does not call for any interference at hands of this Court - Appeal dismissed.

JUDGMENT :

1. The present Appeal is preferred by the Appellant - State of Gujarat under Section 378(1)(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973, against the impugned judgment and order in Sessions Case No. 45 of 2004 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge and Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court No.7, Gondal at Dhoraji, dated 12.9.2007 recording the acquittal for the charges under Sections 323, 324, 504 of the Indian Penal Code, Section 3(1)(10) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as "the Atrocities Act") as well as under Section 37(1) and 135 of the B.P. Act.

2. The facts of the case briefly are that on 6.1.2002, PW-1 - Jayantibhai Kalabhai Harijan - the Complainant has filed a complaint against the Respondent - Deepakbhai Govindbhai Vadodaria - Original Accused in Dhoraji Hospital. It is the case of the prosecution that on 6.1.2002 at about 15:00 hours, while the complainant was passing through Harijanvas of village Bhola, the Respondent Accused Deepak Govindbhai Patel was standing with his vegetable lorry near Harijan Vas and at that time he has demanded vegetable of Rs.1/- on credit. The Respondent Accused Deepakbhai has not given vegetable of Rs.1/- and on the contrary gave filthy abuses to the complainant. It is further the case of prosecution that at the relevant point of time, complainant has requested not to give filthy abuses, the accused person got excited and inflicted knife blow on back side of complainant, therefore, elder brother of complainant, PW-2 - Muljibhai Ramjibhai Pardhi intervened and snatched away the knife from the hands of the accused. It is further the case of prosecution that witness Muljibhai has also received injuries on right hand fingers, therefore, he was taken to hospital for treatment, where complaint was filed against respondent before Police Constable Dhoraji which was registered at Patan Vav Police Station, vide Cr No. I-001/2002 for the offences as aforestated.

3. Upon such FIR being filed, investigation started and the Investigating Officer recorded statements of as many as 11 witnesses and produced number of documentary evidence, and after completion of the investigation, Charge-sheet was filed against the accused for the offences in question. The case was committed to the Sessions Court and the learned trial Judge framed the Charge. Since the accused did not plead guilty, trial was proceeded against the accused. Vide impugned judgment and order dated 12.9.2007, the learned trial Judge acquitted the accused person. Being aggrieved by the same, the State has preferred the present appeal.

4. Heard, learned APP Ms. Jirga Jhaveri for the appellant - State. This Court has passed the following order on 13.6.2022 :

"Though served, none has remained present for Respondent No.1. Office Note states that bail bond is already executed for Respondent No.1. It appears that none is appeared, therefore, when the bailable warrant is issued and non has appeared, Issue non-bailable warrant against the Respondent No.1 through the concerned Police Station."

Today, none has remained present on behalf of the Respondent.

5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has mainly contended that the learned trial Judge has erred in holding that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The learned APP 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.

6. Learned APP Ms. Jirga Jhaveri referred to the judgment and order as well as the testimony of number of witnesses and also the documentary evidence. Learned APP has submitted that the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the learned Judge is c