The appellate court upheld the trial court's acquittal due to insufficient evidence and contradictions in witness testimonies, confirming that the incident did not constitute an offence under the Atrocity Act.

JUDGMENT :

Hemant M. Prachchhak, J.

1. The present appeal is filed by the appellant – State of Gujarat (original complainant) under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short “Cr.P.C.”) against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 10/08/2007 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.1, Surat (hereinafter referred to as “the trial court”) in Special Atrocity Case No.9 of 2006, whereby, the learned Trial Judge has acquitted the original accused respondents herein for the offence punishable under Sections 323, 504 and 506(2) of the Indian Penal Code (for short “the IPC”) and under Section 3(5) (7)(10) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 2002 (for short “the Atrocity Act”).

2. The brief facts giving rise to the present appeal are that, the respondent accused was residing at the above address against whom the complainant - Govindbhai Ichhubhai Vaghela, lodged a complaint on 12/10/2005 before the Limbayat Police Station that he was having some land and decided to sell some part to the respondent accused and therefore, accepted consideration of Rs.2.5 Lacs from the respondent accused as token. It is alleged that respondent accused gave promise to give rest of the amount upto 10/10/2005 but, he did not give and therefore, complainant gave token amount back to the respondent accused. It is the case of prosecution that thereafter, the said land was sold by registered agreement No.3353 to one Jerambhai Mahadevbhai Desai. It is alleged that thereafter, the respondent accused time and again came to the field and made compulsion to sign on the sell document. It is alleged that on 12/10/2005, at about 4:00 p.m. in the evening, the respondent came to the field where complainant was present and respondent accused asked the complainant to sing on the sell document and in response, the complainant had denied to do so. However, the respondent accused got excited and caught hold of the complainant and gave kick and fist blows and also threatened him that if he does not sign, the respondent will kill him. The respondent accused abused him by saying that, "tame dheda sala fati gaya choo". However, by calling Jerambhai over telephone, he rushed to the spot and saved the complainant from further beating. As the Police came to the spot, respondent accused ran away from the spot.

2.1 The complainant was lodged, investigation was conducted, Panchnama was drawn, statements of the witnesses were recorded and upon completion of the investigation as sufficient evidence to link the accused with crime was revealed, the accused person was charge-sheeted for the aforesaid offences. However, the learned Judge did not appreciate the evidence on record of the case, mainly the evidence of the complainant, Police Witnesses who had conducted the fair investigation, so also, the important piece of the evidence in form of caste certificate and thereby, acquitted the respondent accused vide judgment and order of acquittal dated 10/08/2007.

2.2 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order of acquittal, the appellant – State of Gujarat has filed the present appeal under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

3. Heard learned Additional Public Prosecutor Ms.Jyoti Bhatt, appearing on behalf of the appellant State.

Though served, none has remained present on behalf of the respondent accused.

4. Learned APP Ms.Bhatt has submitted that the trial court has committed a grave error while passing the impugned judgment and order acquitting the respondent accused from the charges levelled against him under the provisions of IPC as well as the Atrocity Act. She has submitted that though there was sufficient material and evidence led by the prosecution before the trial court, the trial court has failed to appreciate the evidence in light of the facts of the present case and in light of the provisions of the Special Act. She has submitted that the case of the pro