Decided on December 11,2014

Kamlesh Ratilal Gupta Respondents


Z.K.SAIYED, J. - (1.) PRESENT appeal under Section 378(1)(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 ('the Code' for brevity) has been directed against judgment and order dated 19/07/2014 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, City Civil and Sessions Court, Court No. 7, Ahmedabad City in Atrocity Case No. 12 of 2012 whereby, the learned trial Judge was pleased to acquit the respondent herein original accused for the offence punishable under Section 332 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(i)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 ('the Act' for brevity).
(2.) HEARD Mr. Hardik Soni, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, for the appellant State of Gujarat. Though served, none has appeared on behalf of the respondent accused.
(3.) BRIEF facts of the prosecution case are that complainant Mr. Ram Prasad Meena, lodged a complaint on 06/02/2014 against the present appellant original accused stating that on the said day i.e. 06/02/2014, when he was on his official duty in railways, the appellant accused scuffled with the complainant on the count of booking of parcels and also gave filthy abuses against his caste and also gave fist blow on chest and thereby injured the complainant and run away from the there, and accordingly, the accused was alleged to have committed the offence as above. In support of the case, the prosecution recorded statements of witnesses and collected several documentary evidence and after having found sufficient evidence and material against the accused, he came to be chargesheeted for the alleged offence. As the case was triable by the Court of Sessions, concerned learned Metropolitan Magistrate committed the same to the City Sessions Court at Ahmedabad. The learned trial Judge framed the Charge against the accused for the alleged offence. The Charge was read over to the respondent original accused to which, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. In order to bring home the charge against the respondent original accused, the prosecution has examined as many as 10 witnesses and also produced several documentary evidence. ;

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.