Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK, J.
State Of Gujarat – Appellant
Versus
Mangabhai Manabhai Bharthari & Ors. – Respondents
R/Criminal Appeal No. 1144 of 2008
Decided on : 16-12-2024
(A) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 378(1)(3) - Indian Penal Code - Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 504, 506(2), 325 - Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 - Sections 3(1), (5), (10) - Appeal against acquittal - The trial Court acquitted the accused for the offences under IPC and Atrocities Act due to lack of credible evidence connecting them to the crime, emphasizing the presumption of innocence. The prosecution's case was found to be unsustainable as it failed to establish the charges beyond reasonable doubt, and the trial Court's findings were upheld. (Paras 1, 12, 24)
(B) Acquittal - Appellate Court's power - The appellate court may review the evidence in acquittal cases but must respect the presumption of innocence and only overturn if the trial Court's findings are perverse or unsupported by evidence. (Paras 18, 21)
Facts of the case:
The complainant alleged assault and intimidation by the accused over a land dispute, leading to injuries. The trial Court acquitted the accused, citing insufficient evidence and inconsistencies in witness testimonies.
Findings of Court:
The trial Court found that the prosecution did not prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, leading to acquittal.
Issues: The main issue was whether the evidence presented was sufficient to establish the accused's guilt.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the prosecution's failure to produce reliable evidence warranted the acquittal of the accused, reaffirming the principle that mere allegations are insufficient for conviction.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
1. Present appeal is filed by the appellant – State of Gujarat under Section 378(1)(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 against the impugned judgment and order dated 18.12.2007 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.5, Palanpur (hereinafter be referred to as “the trial Court”) in Special Case No. 167 of 2007 whereby, the trial Court has acquitted the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 504, 506(2) and 325 etc. of the Indian Penal Code (“IPC” for short) read with Section 135 of Bombay Police Act and Sections 3(1), (5) (10) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter be referred to as the “Atrocities Act”).
2. Brief facts of the present case, in nutshell, are as under:-
2.1 The complainant Chamanbhai Bhagvanbhai Parmar registered FIR being I-C.R.No.93/1997 with Chhapi Police Station, at Palanpur, Dist: Banaskantha against the accused for the offence punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 325, 504 and 506(2) of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3(1), (5) (10) of the Atrocity Act, mentioning that the complainant is having land admeasuring 4 acres and 9 gunthas and is having land bearing Survey No.27 situated in the sim of Nagpura Village, which has been purchased by sale deed dated 23.10.1996 from Bharthari Mana Shiva, resident of Nagpuravala and since then, complainant is possessing the said land.
2.2 In that year, the said land was given to his nephew of Rajput Javanji Ramaji on crops share basis. Therefore, they cultivated castor and vetch in the monsoon season and they are served some, land for farming of mustard. On 19.10.1997, the complainant and his nephew Sanjaykumar Naranbhai, Sabatkhan Imamkhan and Javanji Ramaji Rajput went to their said field for farming of mustard and for watering of mustard and they saw caster and Bhadred near the well.
2.3 At that time, at about 11:00 hours, Bharthri Mana Shiva of village Nagpura by possessing a stick, Chaman Mana, Dalpat Mana and Jayanti Mana, Gangarana by possessing a stick and Madar Mana by possessing iron pipe came from slope side and they gave filthy abuses to them. Suddenly, they got provoked and Bharthari Mana Shiva inflicted a stick blow on back of the complainant and Chaman Mana inflicted a stick blow on near the right ear of the complainant and Dalpat Mana inflicted blow on right wrist of the complainant. On hearing that shout his nephew Sanjaykumar and other persons intervened and saved the complainant and Madar Mana inflicted iron pipe blow on wristleft of his nephew Sanjaykumar. Second time, inflicted iron pipe blow on left bavla of his nephew Sanjaykumar and Manga Mana inflicted a stick blow on knee of Sanjay and at the same time, Jayanti Mana inflicted a stick blow on left hand of Sanjay and after shouting, they went with their weapons by giving flighty abuses and threatened to them. Therefore, the complainant registered a complaint against the accused persons.
2.4 After completion of investigation the police has filed chargesheet before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Palanpur for the offence punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 504, 506(2) and 325 of Indian Penal Code and Section 3(1),(5)(10) of the Atrocity Act, 1989. Then after, the matter was committed to the Hon'ble Sessions Court and case was registered as Special Case No. 167/2007.
2.5. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed to be tried. The prosecution, therefore, led evidence. The prosecution has examined as many as 14 witnesses and also produced documentary evidence. At the conclusion of the trial, and after hearing both the sides the Additional Sessions Judge and Fast Track Court No.5, Palanpur has passed an order dated 18.12.2007 in Special Case No. 167/2007, acquitting all the accused from the charges of offences against the offence punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 504, 506(2) and 325 of Indian Penal Code and Sections 3(1), (5) (1
The acquittal was upheld due to the prosecution's failure to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt, emphasizing the presumption of innocence and the need for credible evidence.
The acquittal under the Atrocities Act requires clear intent to humiliate based on caste, and the appellate court can only overturn if there is illegality or perversity in the trial court's judgment.
The prosecution must prove intentional insult or intimidation based on caste to establish an offence under the Atrocity Act; mere membership of a Scheduled Caste is insufficient for conviction.
The appellate court upheld the trial court's acquittal due to insufficient evidence, confirming the double presumption of innocence for the accused.
An acquittal by the trial Court carries a double presumption of innocence, and the appellate court should not disturb it unless there is a manifest error or perverse conclusion.
In acquittal appeals, the prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt; mere contradictions in witness testimonies do not suffice to overturn a trial court's acquittal.
The appellate court must uphold acquittals unless there is clear error in the trial court's evaluation of evidence, respecting the presumption of innocence.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
