Sanjeev J.Thaker, J
1. The present Appeal is preferred by the Appellant State under Section 378(1)(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the judgment and order dated 22.03.2010, passed by the learned Special Judge Jamnagar, in Special Criminal Case No.7 of 2007, recording the acquittal of the respondents for the offences punishable under Section 323, 504 and 352 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
2. The brief facts of the prosecution are that on 01.09.2006, at about 23.30 hours, at village Lalpur, the accused went to the house of complainant, situated in Chamarvas and inquired about Chanabhai, from whom he wanted to recover his unpaid money and insulted the complainant with an intention to provoke and breach public peace and suddenly attacked her without any reason, caused hurt to her by inflicting fist blows and gave filthy abuses against her caste, thus the accused committed an offence in question for which the complaint came to be registered against the accused. On the basis of said complaint, investigation was initiated and after thorough investigation as there was sufficient evidence against the accused, charge-sheet was filed against him before the Court. As the offence was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, as per the provisions of Section 209 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions and thereafter charge was framed against the accused persons and the accused persons pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed to be tried. To prove the case, the prosecution has examined 6 witnesses as well as produced various documentary evidence on record. At conclusion of the Trial, the learned Trial Judge acquitted the accused person. Being aggrieved by the same, the State has preferred the present Appeal.
3. Heard learned APP Mr.Yuvraj Brahmbhatt for the appellant-State and learned advocate Ms.Sneha Joshi for the respondent-original accused.
4. Learned APP has mainly contended that the impugned judgment of acquittal passed by the trial Court is vitiated by manifest errors of law and fact. The prosecution contends that the trial Court's finding that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt is unsustainable in light of the overwhelming evidence on record. A meticulous examination of the evidence adduced by the prosecution reveals that the trial Court's appreciation of evidence suffers from fundamental flaws.
5. The Additional Public Prosecutor argued that the trial Court's reliance on presumptions and inferences has led to an erroneous conclusion. Furthermore, the trial Court has failed to consider the direct and circumstantial evidence that unequivocally links the respondents to the crime. The prosecution also submits that the trial Court has placed undue emphasis on minor discrepancies in the testimony of prosecution witnesses, which does not detract from the prosecution's case.
6. The learned APP has urged this Court to set aside the acquittal, citing the judgment's inconsistency with law, evidence, and principles of natural justice. The conclusions arrived at by the trial Court are perverse and unreasonable, rendering the acquittal unsustainable in law. In the premises, the appellant-State seeks leave to allow the appeal and overturn the acquittal, thereby rendering justice.
7. The learned APP has argued that the learned Trial Judge ought to have appreciated the evidence of P.W.-1 complainant-injured witness Laxmiben Chanabhai, who was examined at Exhibit 33 and the said witness has fully supported the case of the prosecution as narrated by her in the complaint, wherein she has very clearly mentioned how the incident has occurred and what the accused did at the time of the incident.
8. It has also been argued by the learned APP that the Trial Court ought to have appreciated the evidence of P.W.-4 Dr. Shailendrasingh Vijaysingh Yadav, who was examined at Exhibit 45 and in his evidence he had stated that on 02.09.2006, when he was performing his duty at Community Health Center as Medical Officer, the complainant approached him for treatment with Police Yadi and gave him history about the incident by saying on 01.09.2006 at 08.00, hours the accused had assaulted her and the evidence of P.W.4 is supporting the case of the prosecution, wherein he has stated that the injury received by the complainant was possible by the fist blows. It has also been argued that the Trial Court has not appreciated the evidence of eye witness P.W.-2 Prabhaben Kanjibhai, who was examined vide Exhibit 36 and P.W.3-Dayaben Pravinbhai who was examined vide Exhibit 37 who have fully supported the case of the prosecution.
9. Per contra, learned advocate Ms.Sneha Joshi for the respondent while supporting the impugned judgment and order of the Trial Court has submitted that the learned Trial Judge has after due and proper appreciation and evaluation of the evidence on record has come to such a conclusion and has acquitted the accused which is just and proper. It has also been argued by the learned advocate for the respondent that if the two views are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the Appellate Court cannot disturb the findings of acquittal recorded by the Trial Court.
10. It has also been argued by the learned advocate for the respondent that while exercising the powers in appeal against the order of acquittal, the Court of appeal would not ordinarily interfere with the order of acquittal unless the approach of the Trial Court is vitiated by some manifest illegality.
11. Learned advocate for the respondent accused has also argued that the ingredients of the offences alleged against the accused are not proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt and there are several contradictions and omissions in the evidence on record and therefore the Trial Judge has rightly acquitted the accused of the charges levelled against the respondent. Therefore, it has been argued that no interference is required at the hands of this Court and eventually it is argued that the appeal be dismissed.
12. Heard learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and gone through the impugned judgment and order of the Trial Court as well as the material on record vis-a-vis the impugned judgment and order of the Trial Court, following aspects weighted with the Court:
(i) If the deposition of the P.W.-4 i.e. Dr.Shailendrasingh Vijaysingh Yadav who has been examined vide Exhibit 45 is taken into consideration, he has deposed that there were minor injuries to the complainant, wherein he has stated that, there is pain from the back of the neck to elbow and further pain between the elbow and palm of the right hand, there are contradictions in the oral evidence of the complainant Laxmiben Chhanabhai, who has been examined vide Exhibit-33, wherein there are discrepancies on the occurance of the incident and the Trial Court has also come to the conclusion that from the oral evidence of the said complainant, she has not narrated the alleged incident.
(ii) Moreover, the P.W.2-Prabhaben Kanjibhai and P.W.3-Dayabhai Pravinbhai are also closely related to the complainant. There are also contradiction in the complaint and oral evidence of the complainant, in the oral evidence the complainant had stated that she was pulled by her hair and the said fact has not been stated in the complaint.
13. Thus, on re-appreciation and re-evaluation of the oral as well as documentary evidence on record, as referred to herein above it transpires that there are contradictions and omissions in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. Considering the evidence on record, as delineated hereinabove, it becomes evident that there exist certain discrepancies and omissions in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses. The learned trial Judge, upon a comprehensive consideration of the evidence adduced, has astutely observed that the prosecution has failed to present trustworthy evidence sufficient to substantiate the charges levelled against the accused, thereby failing to fulfill the requisite ingredients of the alleged offence.
14. Upon a meticulous re-appreciation and re-evaluation of the entirety of the oral and documentary evidence on record, as delineated hereinabove, it becomes evident that there exist certain discrepancies and omissions in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses. The learned trial Judge, upon a comprehensive consideration of the evidence adduced, has astutely observed that the prosecution has failed to present trustworthy evidence sufficient to substantiate the charges levelled against the accused, thereby failing to fulfill the requisite ingredients of the alleged offense.
15. Having examined the impugned judgment and order, this Court is of the considered opinion that the learned trial Judge has painstakingly considered the depositions of all the witnesses and has arrived at a conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. This Court concurs with the learned trial Judge's conclusion and is of the view that the same does not warrant any interference at the hands of this Court.
16. In such view of the matter, after taking into consideration the guidelines laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mallappa & others vs. State of Karnataka reported in (2024) 3 SCC 544 and Babu Sahebgouda Rudragoudar and Others V/s. State of Karnataka reported in AIR 2024 SC 2252, by which the principles of treating appeals for acquittal have been enumerated, I find no reason to substitute any other view for the plausible view that has been taken by the learned Trial Court in acquitting the accused herein. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
17. Registry is directed to return back the record and proceedings to the concerned Court.
