STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. DEEPAKBHAI GOVINDBHAI VADODARIYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present Appeal is preferred by the Appellant - State of Gujarat under Sec. 378(1)(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973, against the impugned judgment and order in Sessions Case No. 45 of 2004 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge and Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court No.7, Gondal at Dhoraji, dtd. 12/9/2007 recording the acquittal for the charges under Ss. 323, 324, 504 of the Indian Penal Code, Sec. 3(1)(10) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as "the Atrocities Act") as well as under Sec. 37(1) and 135 of the B.P. Act.

(2.) The facts of the case briefly are that on 6/1/2002, PW-1 - Jayantibhai Kalabhai Harijan - the Complainant has filed a complaint against the Respondent - Deepakbhai Govindbhai Vadodaria - Original Accused in Dhoraji Hospital. It is the case of the prosecution that on 6/1/2002 at about 15:00 hours, while the complainant was passing through Harijanvas of village Bhola, the Respondent Accused Deepak Govindbhai Patel was standing with his vegetable lorry near Harijan Vas and at that time he has demanded vegetable of Rs.1.00 on credit. The Respondent Accused Deepakbhai has not given vegetable of Rs.1.00 and on the contrary gave filthy abuses to the complainant. It is further the case of prosecution that at the relevant point of time, complainant has requested not to give filthy abuses, the accused person got excited and inflicted knife blow on back side of complainant, therefore, elder brother of complainant, PW-2 - Muljibhai Ramjibhai Pardhi intervened and snatched away the knife from the hands of the accused. It is further the case of prosecution that witness Muljibhai has also received injuries on right hand fingers, therefore, he was taken to hospital for treatment, where complaint was filed against respondent before Police Constable Dhoraji which was registered at Patan Vav Police Station, vide Cr No. I-001/2002 for the offences as aforestated.

(3.) Upon such FIR being filed, investigation started and the Investigating Officer recorded statements of as many as 11 witnesses and produced number of documentary evidence, and after completion of the investigation, Charge-sheet was filed against the accused for the offences in question. The case was committed to the Sessions Court and the learned trial Judge framed the Charge. Since the accused did not plead guilty, trial was proceeded against the accused. Vide impugned judgment and order dtd. 12/9/2007, the learned trial Judge acquitted the accused person. Being aggrieved by the same, the State has preferred the present appeal.