STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. ASHABHAI SSHANKARBHAI ZALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 28.11.1991, passed by the learned Special Judge, Nadiad, in Special Criminal Case No.32/1991, whereby the respondent original accused has been acquitted of offences punishable under Sections 394, 332, 323, 504 and 506(2) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 ('the Atrocities Act' for short).

(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the case of the prosecution is that the complainant, Manubhai Dungarbhai, was serving as a Bus conductor. The respondent was a passenger in the bus enroute from Nadiad to Dethali. It is alleged that when the complainant asked the respondent to purchase a ticket, the respondent allegedly abused the complainant and called him 'Sala Dheda', and said 'you being a man of my village, why are you demanding a ticket'. The complainant told the respondent not to abuse him. When the bus reached the Bus -stand, the respondent got down from the bus, caught hold of the neck of the complainant, squeezed his throat, beat him with kick and fist blows and also threatened him. It is further the case of the prosecution that the respondent looted an amount of Rs.70/ - from the complainant and tore his Khakhi Bush -Shirt. The complainant was rescued by the bus driver and the other passengers in the bus. A complaint was lodged in this regard on 25.06.1991, and the investigation commenced. After necessary investigation, oral and documentary evidence was led by the prosecution. The respondent has denied the charges against him. In his further statement, he has asked for permission to file a Written Statement. In the Written Statement of defence, which is at Exhibit -15, the respondent has stated that he had boarded the bus at Dethali and when the complainant asked him to purchase a ticket, he had given the complainant an amount of Rs.5/=. The ticket was worth Rs.1/= only, and when the respondent asked the complainant to return Rs.4/=, the complainant started arguing with him and abusing him. The respondent told the complainant that he had misappropriated the money of a poor man and he would complaint to the Department of the complainant regarding this incident.

(3.) AFTER appreciating the evidence on record, the Trial Court found that the prosecution had failed to adduce evidence in support of the charges levelled against the respondent, and concluded that the charges had not been proved beyond reasonable doubt.