The appellate court upheld the presumption of innocence and confirmed the acquittal, stating the prosecution failed to prove charges beyond reasonable doubt.

JUDGMENT :

HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK, J.

1. Present appeal under Section 378 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 has been filed by the appellant-State of Gujarat challenging the impugned judgment and order dated 22.12.2006 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge and Special Judge (Atrocity), Fast Track Court N.1, Dhrangadhra (hereinafter referred to as “the Trial Court” for short) in Special Case No. 25 of 2004 whereby the Trial Court has acquitted the accused from the charges levelled against them.

2. Brief facts of the present case are that on 06.04.2004 at about 12.00 p.m., the accused came to the house of the complainant and knocked the door and, thereafter they forcefully opened the door and entered into the house of the complainant and asked about Parsottambhai, the brother of the complainant. That brother of the complainant i.e. Parsottambhai had taken some loan from the accused and had not returned the same and, therefore, the assailants came to the house of the complainant and assaulted on Parsottambhai by the respective weapons and upon intervention by the complainant and his mother, they have sustained injuries in the scuffle. It is the case of the prosecution that the scuffle took place in the house of the complainant and, thereafter, the accused kidnapped Parsottambhai and have looted gold and silver ornaments and they have also insulted by their caste and community and used flimsy words and, therefore, the incident has taken place.

3. A complaint came to be registered as C.R. No. I-10/2004 at Dasada Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 147, 148, 149, 365, 452, 427 etc of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and under Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act. During the investigation, the accused was arrested.

4. After completion of investigation, as the sufficient evidence was found, the police has arrested the accused and has filed the charge-sheet against the accused before the Judicial Magistrate (First Class), Patadi wherein it was registered as Criminal Case No. 379 of 2004. As the offence was triable by the Court of Sessions, the Judicial Magistrate (First Class) has committed the case under Section 209 of the Criminal Procedure Code to the Court of Sessions wherein it has been registered as Special Case No. 25 of 2004.

5. The charge against the accused came to be framed by the learned Presiding Officer and Special Judge vide Exhibit 7 for the aforesaid offences. On being explained it to them, the accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and pleaded for trial. Hence, the case was tried by the learned Presiding Officer and Special Judge.

6. It appears from the records that the prosecution has examined the following witnesses:

7. In addition to this, the prosecution has also produced the following documentary evidence: