Dismissed

State of Gujarat v. Arjanbhai Jaymalbhai Rabari

Gujarat HC8 Jan 2008CR.A/524/1993

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

On appeal by the State, the High Court rejected the challenge to an order of acquittal. The respondent was acquitted of offences under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and Civil Protection Act. The High Court upheld the trial court's view that the prosecution failed to prove the case due to the complainant's compromise and lack of corroborative evidence.

What did the court decide?

The criminal appeal was dismissed, and the judgment of acquittal of the respondent-appellant was confirmed.

State of Gujarat Vs Arjanbhai Jaymalbhai Rabari — Caste Atrocities | Gujarat HC (2008)

¶1

CR.A/524/1993

¶2

1/7

¶3

JUDGMENT

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

¶5

CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 524 of 1993

¶6

For Approval and Signature:

¶7

HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE Z.K.SAIYED

¶8

=========================================================

¶9

1^{Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed} to see the judgment ?

¶10

2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ?

¶11

3^{Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy} of the judgment ?

¶12

Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the 4 constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ?

¶13

5^{Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge} ?

¶14

=========================================================

¶15

STATE OF GUJARAT - Appellant(s)

¶16

Versus

¶17

ARJANBHAI JAYMALBHAI RABARI - Opponent(s)

¶18

=========================================================

¶19

Appearance :

¶20

MS DARSHANA PANDIT, APP, for Appellant(s) : 1,

¶21

MR D.N.VAKIL for MR VIJAY H PATEL for Opponent(s) : 1,

¶22

=========================================================

¶23

CORAM :HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE Z.K.SAIYED

¶24

Date : 08/01/2008

¶25

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶26

1. The present acquittal Appeal has been filed by the State, under Section 378 Cr.P.C., against the Judgment and order dated 1.10.1992, rendered in Special Case No.56 of 1992 by the learned

¶27

CR.A/524/1993

¶28

2/7

¶29

JUDGMENT

¶30

Special Judge, Banas Kantha at Palanpur. The
said case was registered against the respondent
– accused for the offence punishable under
Sections 3(1)(10) of the Scheduled Castes &
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,
1989 and under Sections 3 & 7 of Civil
Protection Act. The said Judgment of the Special
Court has been challenged by the State on the
ground that the Judgment and order passed by the
learned Special Judge is contrary to law and
evidence on record.

¶31

2. According to the prosecution case the
complainant Shankerlal Govindram Kapdi (Harijan
Sadhu), belonging to Schedule Caste, who was at
the relevant time serving as teacher in Primary
School at Ratanpur. The respondent – accused
Arjanbhai Jaymalbhai Rabari was serving as Head
Master in the said School. It is the prosecution
case that as per the direction of the Primary
Teachers Sangh the respondent asked the
complainant to attend the School from 9.3.1992
to 14.3.1992 for stamping the Report and,
therefore, the complainant went to School at
11.00 O'clock on 9.3.1992 for doing the said
work. Thereafter the respondent also went to the
school. At that time the respondent told the
wife of the complainant – Savitaben that “he
will beat Shankerlal”. Thereafter he told the
complainant that “you Harijan Bava Dheda what
you will do” and after saying so he gave

¶32

CR.A/524/19933/7

¶33

JUDGMENT

¶34

Chappal blows on the head and chick of the
complainant and thereafter told the complainant
that he may do what he likes and he is not
afraid of anybody. As per the complainant's say
at that time his wife, son, Vardhibhai
Chhaganbhai and Jitabhai Karigar were present.
So the complainant has filed the complaint at
Thara Police Station, Thara, Dist. Banas Kantha,
at 3.30 pm on the same day against the present
respondent u/ss. 323, 504 I.P. Code and also
under Section 3(1)(10) of the Atrocity Act and
u/ss. 3 & 7 of the Civil Protection Act. Then

¶35

the investigation was carried out, the
respondent – accused was arrested. Thereafter,
the charge-sheet was filed against the present
respondent. Since the offences punishable u/s.
3(1)(10) of the Atrocities Act are triable by
the Court of Sessions, the case was committed to
the Court of Special Judge, Palanpur and the
case was registered as Special Case No.56 of
1992. The charge was framed against the
respondent – accused. The accused pleaded not
guilty to the charges. Then the prosecution has
led oral as well as documentary evidence to
prove its case against the present respondent.
During the trial the parties arrived at a
compromise and so the present respondent as well
as the original complainant filed compromise
purshis, which is at page : 13, for the offence
under sections 323 and 504 I.P. Code which are
compoundable u/s.320 Cr.P.C. and, therefore, the

¶36

CR.A/524/1993

¶37

4/7

¶38

JUDGMENT

¶39

respondent – accused was acquitted from the
offence punishable u/ss. 323 & 504 I.P. Code in
exercise of powers u/s. 320 of Cr. P.C. by the
Special Judge. But, so far as Section 3(1)(10)
of the Atrocity Act and Section 3 & 7 are
concerned, the same were not compoundable and,
therefore, the trial Court has passed an order
to proceed case against the respondent for the
offence u/ss. 3(1)(10) of the Atrocities Act and
Section 3 & 7 of the Civil Protection Act. Then
the oral evidence was record. The statement of
the respondent u/s.313 Cr.P.C. Was also record
and then at the conclusion of the trial the
learned Special Judge has found no substance in
the prosecution case and, therefore, acquitted
the respondent – accused from the said offence
vide impugned Judgment. The said Judgment of the
trial Court has been challenged by the State on
the ground that the Judgment and order passed by
the learned Special Judge is against the law and
evidence on record.

¶40

3. I have heard learned APP Ms. Darshana Pandit on behalf of the Appellant – State Government and learned Advocate Mr. D.N.Vakil for Mr. Vijay Patel, appearing on behalf of the respondent – accused. I have also gone through the Judgment and order passed by the trial Court.

¶41

4. It is contended by learned APP Ms. Darshana Pandit that the trial Court has not applied its

¶42

CR.A/524/1993

¶43

JUDGMENT

¶44

5/7

¶45

mind properly and has not scrutinized the
evidence produced by the prosecution; it is
submitted that sufficient oral as well as
documentary evidence was produced before the
trial Court and it is true that there may be
some contradictory evidence produced by the
witnesses who are illiterate persons and the
trial Court ought to have considered the case of
the prosecution.

¶46

5. Learned Advocate Mr. Vakil, appearing on behalf
of the respondent – accused contended that from
Page-6 of the Judgment of the trial Court it is
evident that though the incident occurred at
11.00 am the complaint was lodged at 8.30 pm and
the complainant has not explained the delay
caused in late filing of the complaint. The
complainant was declared hostile by the
prosecution and thereafter even in the cross
examination by the prosecution, the prosecution
has failed to collect the material evidence.
Looking to the version of the complainant and
the story of the prosecution both are
contradictory in nature. Even the wife of the
complainant and also the independent witnesses
who were present at the time of occurrence of
incident have also not supported the prosecution
version.

¶47

6. I have gone through the Judgment and order
passed by the trial Court. I have also

¶48

CR.A/524/1993

¶49

6/7

¶50

JUDGMENT

¶51

appreciated the documentary as well as oral
evidence and also the legal submissions made by
both the learned Advocates. It has come on
record that the complainant as well as the
prosecution witnesses have not supported the
case of the prosecution. No doubt the
Investigating Agency has carried out the
investigation in a proper way. But, when the
star witnesses have not supported the
prosecution case and as the complainant has
filed compromise purshish and compounded the
offence punishable u/ss. 323 & 504 I.P. Code
before the trial is commenced then the conduct
of the applicant can be considered as doubtful
and from the reasons given by the trial Court it
appears that the trial Court has considered the
said issue of acquittal in a proper and legal
manner. In my view the prosecution has failed to
establish that the respondent has committed the
offences alleged against him. It is the duty of

¶52

the prosecution to prove its case beyond
reasonable doubt, but the prosecution has failed
in doing so. Therefore, I am of the opinion that
the trial Court has rightly turned down the
evidence and held that the present respondent
has not committed any offence. It also appears
that the trial Court has rightly held that the
prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond
reasonable doubt.

¶53

7. It is settled legal position that in acquittal

¶54

CR.A/524/19937/7JUDGMENT

¶55

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 respondent – accused
and adopting the said reasons and for the
reasons aforesaid, in my view, the impugned
Judgment is just, legal and proper and requires
no interference by this Court at this stage.
Hence, this Appeal requires to be dismissed.

¶56

8. In the result, the Appeal is hereby dismissed. The impugned Judgment and order dated 1.10.1992 passed by the learned Assistant Judge & Special Judge, Banas Kantha at Palanpur, in Special Case No.56 of 1992 acquitting the respondent – accused, is hereby confirmed.

¶57

sas

State of Gujarat v. Arjanbhai Jaymalbhai Rabari

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of Gujarat v. Arjanbhai Jaymalbhai Rabari

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vali Mohmad Hanif Mohmad Memon Vs State of Gujarat

State of Gujarat Vs Gopalbhai Maganbhai Koli

State of Gujarat Vs Kiransinh Jaswantsinh Anitiya Canteen Supervisor

State of Gujarat Vs Rameshbhai Maganlal Vaderiya

State of Gujarat Vs Arvindbhai Jagjivan

State of Gujarat Vs Vithhalbhai Punambhai