- (1.) STATE of Gujarat, by the present appeal, challenges the judgment and order dated 17.05.1996 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Jamnagar in Sessions Case No.27 of 1991 acquitting the present respondents of offences punishable under Sections 307, 452, 504 and 506(2) read with Section 32 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
(2.) COMPLAINANT Ramji Tapu (PW 3), who is a Harijan by caste, is stated to have been assaulted and seriously injured by the present respondents - original accused. The reason for the attack, according to the prosecution, is that Ramji Tapu had written a love letter to one Manjulaben (PW 12) who is niece of accused Savjibhai Kagathra and sister of accused Nagji Odhavji, and angered by his such action the accused party had come to rebuke him and during the altercation had abused and threatened Ramji Tapu and thereafter accused Savjibhai is stated to have a given a knife blow in the abdomen of Ramjibhai.
(3.) A complaint came to be registered against the accused persons and after investigation, they were sent for trial. The Trial Court found that the evidence led by the prosecution was not reliable and did not establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The Trial Judge found that there were several discrepancies in the prosecution evidence over the manner in which the incident occurred, who were the assailants, how the injured was removed to the hospital and the presence of the witnesses at the place of incident. The Trial Judge did not find the evidence of injured witness Ramjibhai PW 3 to be safe for recording a finding of guilt in view of the several omissions and contradictions noted in the judgment. So far as the other witnesses - Jaysukh Tapu PW 4, Harsukh Vashram PW 5, Trikam Karshan PW 14, Giviben Chanabhai PW 15, and Daya Hamir PW 16, who are stated to have immediately rushed to the complainant, the Trial Court has come to a conclusion that their presence at the scene of occurrence is doubtful and furthermore that their evidence is contrary to the evidence of Ramji Tapu and instead of corroborating the evidence of Ramji Tapu renders his evidence unreliable and doubtful. The Trial Court, therefore, found that the prosecution has failed to establish its case against the accused and accordingly acquitted the accused for want of cogent evidence.;