IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 945 of 2005 FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE GITA GOPI Sd/-

==========================================================

Approved for Reporting Yes No √

==========================================================

JADEJA MAHIPATSINH DHULAJI Versus THE STATE OF GUJARAT ==========================================================

Appearance:

MR SP MAJMUDAR(3456) with MR SURAJ MATIEDA for the Appellant(s)

No. 1 MS JYOTI BHATT APP for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1 ==========================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE GITA GOPI Date : 06/02/2026

ORAL JUDGMENT

1. The appellant-accused is convicted through judgment and order of conviction passed by the learned Special Judge, Joint District Court, Patan dated 01.04.2005 in Special Atrocity Case No.425 of 2002 under Section 332, 504, 506(2) of the Indian Penal Code (for short, ‘I.P.C’), while was acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 323 of the I.P.C and Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (for short, ‘the Atrocity Act’), 1989.

1.1 The accused has been sentenced for a period of two years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo six months of simple imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 332 of the I.P.C. and, for a period of one year of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.2,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo three months of simple imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 504 of the I.P.C and, for a period of three years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo one year of simple imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 506(2)

of the I.P.C.

2. Learned Advocate Mr. S.P Majmudar submitted that if accused had been acquitted under Section 323 of I.P.C and Section 3(1)(x) of the Atrocity Act, then there should not have been any conviction under Section 332 of the I.P.C and Section 504 and 506(2), since the pre-condition under Section 332 of the I.P.C is that the hurt must have been caused to the public servant and that hurt must be caused while such public servant was acting in discharge of his duty as such or in order to prevent or deter him from discharging his duty has public servant or in consequences of his having done or attempting to do anything in the lawful discharge of his duty as the public servant. Advocate Mr. Majmudar submitted that if the case of hurt as defined under Section 319 of the Criminal Procedure Code (for short, ‘Cr.PC’) is not proved then the nexus which is required for the applicability of Section 332 of the I.P.C gets disconnected and therefore, no conviction could lie under Section 332 of the I.P.C.

2.1 Learned Advocate Mr. Majmudar submitted that for the conviction to lie under Section 506(2) of the I.P.C, the criminal intimidation or the threat to cause death or grievous hurt must be proved to be eminent, where the actual fear of such intention must be proved and for the punishment under Section 504, it is required to be proved that the abusive and insulting language was with an intent to cause breach of public peace and that the insult should be intentional. Advocate Mr. Majmudar submitted that when there is acquittal under Section 3(1)(x) of the Atrocity Act, then it could be inferred that there was no offence of intentional insult with an intent to provoke the breach of peace.

2.2 Referring to the testimony of the witnesses, learned Advocate Mr. Majmudar submitted that the learned Trial Court Judge has erred in appreciating the evidence on record. The contradiction of the complaint and testimony could be proved since the complaint was not proved in the evidence of the complainant himself. The fact of the incident has not been supported by any independent witnesses, and Advocate Mr. Majmudar submitt