State Of Gujarat vs Parbatbhai Jadavbhai Nandaniya

R.P.Dholaria, J

The State has preferred this appeal under Section 378 of the Criminal Procedure Code against the judgment and order dated 12.07.2017 rendered

by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Porbandar in Sessions Case No.16 of 2015, whereby the present respondent-original accused was acquitted

for the offence punishable under Sections 332, 333, 504 and 506(1) of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as “IPC).

The case of the prosecution in short is that accused had some altercation with the complainant at the office of PGVCL for electric connection and

he had given abusive words and slapped complainant and administered threat by catching his left hand and told the complainant that if he will come

out, the accused will kill him and thereby restrained the complainant from discharging his duty. On these facts, a complaint was filed by the

complainant with Kutiyana Police Station. The police after investigation charge sheeted the accused for the aforesaid offences. The accused pleaded

not guilty to the charge and claimed to be tried.

Thereafter, after filing closing purshis by the prosecution, further statement of accused person under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure, 1973 was recorded. The accused person has denied the case of the prosecution and submitted that a false case is filed against him.

At the conclusion of trial and after appreciating the oral as well as documentary evidence, the learned Judge vide impugned Judgment, acquitted the

respondent-accused.

Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said judgment and order of acquittal dated 12.07.2017 rendered by the learned Additional Sessions

Judge, Porbandar in Sessions Case No.16 of 2015, the appellant-State has preferred the present appeal before this Court.

Learned APP Ms. Hansa Punani for the appellant-State has taken this Court through entire records and proceedings and read over the evidence of

material witnesses and submitted that the complainant was serving as Deputy Engineer with PGVCL and while he was on duty, at that time, the

respondent-accused came to inquire as regards getting electricity connection in favour of his relative which resulted into altercation and scuffle and

during that course, the respondent-accused gave fist blow due to which the complainant got injured over his left hand and that fact as narrated in the

complaint was deposed by him in his testimony. In support of his testimony, other employees who were present at the time of incident, also deposed

the same thing and even the corroborative evidence from the mouth of two learned Doctors as regards injury over the person of the complainant is

also getting proved, though, the learned trial court, while recording minor contradictions as regards abuse, wrongfully acquitted the respondent-original

accused which requires to be reversed as such.

On the other hand, learned advocate Mr. Viral Vyas for learned advocate Mr. Ashish Dagli supported the judgment of acquittal recorded by the

learned trial court and argued that the complainant has neither stated in the complaint, nor deposed before the court as regards to what sort of abusive

words were used by the respondent-accused. Similarly, before the learned Doctors, he gave history as regards to injury over his finger and as regards

to scuffle and even before the previous Doctor, who treated him, name of accused was also not given. Further, Mr. Vyas, learned advocate pointed

out that 2 to 3 other employees who were eye-witnesses to the incident, had not supported the case of prosecution and none of the panchas have

supported the case of prosecution and in view of aforesaid nature of evidence, the learned trial court has rightly acquitted the respondent-accused

which calls for no interference.

As per the case of prosecution, the complainant while he was on duty as Deputy Engineer at his office on 27.08.2012, at that time, at about 1:00

p.m., the respondent-accused assaulted and abused him and also prevented him from discharging his duty and thereby committed the offence

punishable under Sections 332, 333, 504 and 506(1) of the IPC.

On perusal of testimony of various witnesses including the complainant, it is noticed that the complainant-P.W.2 had given his deposition in

conformity with his complaint, but in his complaint, he has not given any detail as to what sort of abuse was extended to him by the respondent-

accused. Generally, he has stated in the complaint and deposed that he was abused. The same is the evidence of other witnesses also. Similarly, as

regards to injury, fracture was found over his proximal left hand ring finger and the injury came to be ascribed due to scuffle between him and the

respondent-accused. The records and proceedings clearly indicates that while the complainant was taken to Community Health Center, Kutiyana, he

did not give name of the respondent-accused, but while he was taken to Bhavsinhji General Hospital, Porbandar, he named the respondent as the

accused.

In view of aforesaid nature of evidence, since three colleagues of the complainant namely Mr. Vijaybhai, Mr. Nareshbhai and Mr. Bhayabhai had

not at all supported the case of prosecution and the complainant himself had not given details as to how he came to be abused except narration as

regards to his abuse, no verbal explanation was given and as regards to injury, he had explained that he came to be injured due to scuffle. In that view

of the matter, the learned trial court has rightly given the benefit of doubt to the respondent-accused and acquitted him which calls for no interference.

Therefore, present appeal being devoid of any merits deserves to be rejected.

It is settled legal position that in an acquittal appeal, the Appellate Court is not required to re-write the Judgment or to give fresh reasonings when

the Appellate Court is in agreement with the reasons assigned by the trial Court acquitting the accused. In the instant case, this Court is in full

agreement with the reasons given and findings recorded by the trial Court while acquitting the respondents-accused and adopting the said reasons as

well as the reasons aforesaid, in my view, the impugned Judgment is just, legal and proper and requires no interference by this Court at this stage. I do

not find any cogent reason to interfere with the impugned decision as it cannot be said to be either perverse or not borne out from the facts of the

case. The State has not been able to persuade this Court to take a different view in this matter. Hence, this appeal sans merit is required to be

dismissed.

In the result, the appeal is hereby dismissed. The impugned Judgment and order dated 12.07.2017 rendered by the learned Additional Sessions

Judge, Porbandar in Sessions Case No.16 of 2015, acquitting the respondent-accused, is hereby confirmed. Record and Proceedings be sent back to

the trial Court concerned forthwith. Bail and Bail bonds, if any, stand cancelled.