Back
2024 Supreme(Guj) 1615
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
GITA GOPI, J.
RAKESHBHAI RAMJIBHAI RATHOD – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT – Respondent
Criminal Revision Application No. 674 of 2004
Decided On : 19-06-2024
Advocate Appeared:
For the Respondents: R.J. GOSWAMI, SHALINI S. MAIR, HARDIK MEHTA.
IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that allegations under the Atrocities Act require clear evidence of public humiliation and corroboration, which were lacking in this case.
Headnote:
Criminal - Atrocity Case - Cr.P.C. Sections 397, 401 - IPC Sections 323, 504, 506(2), 427 - Atrocities Act Section 3(1)(10) - The court interpreted the provisions of the Cr.P.C. and the Atrocities Act, emphasizing the necessity of corroborative evidence and the requirement for public view in establishing the offense.
Fact of the Case:
The applicant challenged a judgment of acquittal in an Atrocity case, alleging that the accused used abusive language and threatened him due to his backward class status. The trial court found insufficient evidence to support the claims.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the trial judge properly assessed the evidence, concluding that the allegations of abuse and threats were not substantiated by credible witnesses or corroborative evidence.
Issues: Whether the trial court erred in acquitting the accused under the Atrocities Act and related IPC sections due to lack of evidence.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that for an offense under the Atrocities Act, there must be intentional insult or intimidation in a public view, which was not established in this case.
Result: The application is rejected, confirming the acquittal judgment.
ORDER :
1. Though the learned Advocate for the applicant was served with a notice, today, when the matter was called out, no one has appeared on behalf of the applicant.
2. The present Revision Application is challenged under Section 397 read with Section 401 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to in short as ‘Cr.P.C.’) by the original complainant - the applicant herein, making the three accused alongwith the State as respondents. The Revision application qua the respondent No. 3-Kantilal Ishvardas Patel came to be abated by the order of the Court dated 21.01.2015.
3. By way of this application, the challenge is given to the judgment of acquittal passed on 26.03.2024 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 10, Gandhinagar in Atrocity Case No. 46 of 2003. The trial was against the three accused under Sections 323, 504, 506(2), 427 read with Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 3(1)(10) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to in short as the ‘Atrocity Act’). A complaint/First Information Report (FIR) was filed at Pethapur Police Station on 23.12.2002 by the present applicant as II-C.R. No. 104 of 2002.
4. The revisionist has raised the ground that he was working as watchman in Mulchand Park, Pethapur Taluka and District Gandhingar. It is alleged that the accused have used abusive language and had beaten him by giving blows and threatened him not to live in the Village or else he would be killed. The grounds raised in present Revision Application are that the order impugned is illegal, unjust, improper and bad in law against the facts and circumstances and the evidence on record. The order is against the good conscience and the settled position of law. One of the grounds raised by the revisionist is to the effect that the learned Judge was required to appreciate the fact and a bare perusal of the FIR makes it clear that the accused are head strong persons who do not like backward class persons. It is further stated that the entire incident has occurred because the applicant belongs to Dedh community - backward class and had taken the land of the accused.
5. It is further stated by the revisionist in the ground that on date of the incident, i.e. 22.12.2003, the accused had come to Mulchand Park and had abused and broken down the verandah constructed on the land. It is stated that the accused had come to beat the applicant and had threatened him but the learned Judge has ignored this aspect. The evidence of Mahesh Shah below Exhibit 51 supports the case of the applicant, who have supported saying that the accused have used abusive language. Mahesh Shah alongwith his partner Kanubhai had intervened when the accused were beating the applicant and Mahesh Shah is an eye witness to the incident. Such evidence recorded was not appreciated by the learned trial Court. It is stated that the Mahesh and Kanubhai are the eye witnesses to the incident. It is further stated that after investigation, the accused were found guilty and therefore, the charges were leveled against them. The learned Judge has not appreciated the evidence which supports the case of the applicant.
6. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor stated that no challenge has been given by the State since evidence is led which does not support the case of the complainant. However, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that if at all any evidence requires appreciation, this Court may pass necessary order so that justice can be done.
7. Having heard the submissions and on perusing the records of the case, the impugned judgment reveals that about six witnesses were examined by the learned trial Court. The charges were framed. The statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. was recorded. The list of documents were produced by them and the plaint of Regular Civil Suit Nos.280 of 2002 and 281 of 2002 were produced on
