In an appeal under Section 378 CrPC challenging an acquittal in an offence under Section 354 IPC, the HighCourt held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt due to contradictory witness statements and lack of physical evidence, dismissing the appeal.
Appeal dismissed and acquittal confirmed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
CR.A/906/1994
1/6
JUDGMENT
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 906 of 1994
For Approval and Signature:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE Z.K.SAIYED
=========================================================
Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?To be referred to the Reporter or not ?Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?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 ?
Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ?=========================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT - Appellant(s)
Versus
VITHHALBHAI PUNAMBHAI - Opponent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance :
MS DARSHNA PANDIT, APP, for Appellant(s) : 1,
MR B.Y. MANKAD for Opponent(s) : 1,
=========================================================
CORAM :HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE Z.K.SAIYED
Date : 08/01/2008
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. The present acquittal Appeal has been filed by the State, under Section 378 Cr. P.C., against the Judgment and order dated 4.6.1994, rendered
CR.A/906/1994
2/6
JUDGMENT
in Criminal Case No. 2023 of 1989 by the learned
Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Petlad. The
said case was registered against the respondent
– accused for the offence punishable under
Sections 254 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
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 JMFC is
contrary to law and evidence on record.
2. According to the prosecution case the
complainant Punjabhai Shanabhai Talpada (Vaghri)
of Shihol filed complaint before Mehlav Police
Station, District Kheda being CR No.I-84 of 1989
on 4.9.1989 for the offence u/s. 354 I.P. Code
against the present respondent – accused. It is
the case of the prosecution that the daughter of
the complainant, namely, Divaliben, aged 7
years, was grazing the buffalo in the sim of
Randol village and at that time the respondent –
accused Vitthalbhai Punambhai Talpada (Vaghri)
chased the prosecutrix just to take an advantage
of loneliness and tried to outrage her modesty.
The prosecutrix made hue and cry and therefore
the people nearby the surrounding area rushed
and, therefore, the respondent – accused ran
away. Then the complaint was filed by the
complainant against the respondent and he was
arrested. Then the investigation was carried out
and the respondent – accused was arrested and
thereafter charge-sheet was filed against the
CR.A/906/1994
3/6
JUDGMENT
present respondent – accused before the trial
Court. The charge was framed against the
respondent – accused. The accused pleaded not
guilty to the charges. Thereafter, the
prosecution led oral as well as documentary
evidence to prove its case against the present
respondent. The statement of the respondent
u/s.313 Cr.P.C. was also recorded. At the
conclusion of the trial the learned trial 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.
3. I have heard learned APP Ms. Darshana Pandit on behalf of the Appellant – State Government and learned Advocate Mr. B.Y. Mankad, appearing on behalf of the respondent – accused. I have also gone through the Judgment and order passed by the trial Court.
4. It is contended by learned APP Ms. Darshana Pandit that the trial Court has not applied its mind properly and has not scrutinized the evidence produced by the prosecution; that the Judgment and order of the trial Court is not proper and is against the provision of law; it
CR.A/906/1994
4/6JUDGMENT
is illegal and bad in eye of law; 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, but, the
trial Court ought to have ignored the same and
ought to have considered the case of the
prosecution.
5. Learned Advocate Mr. Mankad, appearing on behalf
of the respondent – accused contended that the
trial Court has considered each and every
aspects of the evidence produced by the
prosecution. He has also contended that the
panchnama has not supported the prosecution
version and other evidence also has not proved
the prosecution case. He has also contended that
from the oral as well as documentary evidence of
the mother and father of the prosecutrix it
clearly transpires that it is purely
contradictory with each other. He has also
contended that there was no mark of injury on
the body of the prosecutrix. He has also
contended that as per the evidence the minor
girl was pulled down by the respondent, however,
no abrasion or any mark of injury was found on
the body of the prosecutrix.
6. I have gone through the Judgment and order
passed by the trial Court. I have also
CR.A/906/1994
5/6JUDGMENT
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 star witness minor Diwaliben has
kept mum regarding the incident. Even the father
andmotheroftheprosecutrixmade
contradictorystatements.Nodoubtthe
prosecution has tried to prove its case against
the present respondent, but due to the
contradictory version and doubtful scenario
which was produced by the witnesses it is
established that the trial Court has considered
the said aspect in favour of the present
respondent. In my view the prosecution has
failed to establish that the respondent has
committed the offences alleged against him. It
is the duty of 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. In my
view, the trial Court has rightly held that the
prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond
reasonable doubt.
7. It is settled legal position that in acquittal
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
CR.A/906/1994
6/6JUDGMENT
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.
8. In the result, the Appeal is hereby dismissed. The impugned Judgment and order dated 4.6.1994 passed by the learned J.M.F.C., Petlad, in Criminal Case No.2023 of 1989 acquitting the respondent – accused, is hereby confirmed.
sas
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with the acquittal order of the trial Court.
Whether the prosecution failed to prove the case of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
4 provisions across 2 enactments
State of Gujarat
Vithalbhaim PUNAMBHAI
Z.K. Saiyed
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court