Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
CR.MA/11333/2009 3/ 3 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CRIMINAL
MISC.APPLICATION No. 11333 of 2009
In
CRIMINAL
APPEAL No. 1727 of 2009
=========================================================
STATE
OF GUJARAT - Applicant(s)
Versus
BALVANTBHAI
PRABHATBHAI SONARA - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance :
PUBLIC
PROSECUTOR for
Applicant(s) : 1,
None for Respondent(s) :
1,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL
and
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE Z.K.SAIYED
Date
: 21/04/2010
ORAL
ORDER
(Per
: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL)
The
present application for leave to prefer appeal is directed against
the Judgement and Order dated 03.07.2009 passed by the learned
Special Judge in Special Atrocity Case No.29/07, whereby the accused
has been acquitted for the offences punishable under sections 384,
323 and 506 (2) of the IPC and for the offences under section
3(1)(10) of the Schedule Caste & Schedule Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities)Act, 1989.
We
have considered the judgement and the reasons recorded by the
learned Special Judge. We have considered the Record and
Proceedings. We have heard the learned APP for the State.
It
appears to us that initially, the C-Summary Report was filed and
thereafter, as the affidavits were filed, the learned Magistrate had
issued process. At the time of trial, certain witnesses have not
supported the case of prosecution. One of the witness Gopalbhai
Nathabhai at Exh.37 only stated that he has signed the affidavit
which was prepared by Ashokbhai and he has no knowledge of the
contents thereof. The pertinent aspect is that another witness
Manojbhai Vechatbhai Ozat was examined as P.W.6 and deposition was
recorded at Exh.54 has stated in the cross examination that as per
the statement recorded of the witnesses, the incident had not
happened and PSI Sonara was not present at the time when the
incident had happened nor the use of any derogatory language was
there. Under these circumstances, if the witnesses examined by the
prosecution has not only contradicted but has categorically in the
cross-examination stated that such incident has not happened and the
presence of PSI itself is not proved, the case of the prosecution
cannot be said to be proved beyond reasonble doubt.
Hence,
if the learned Special Judge has taken the view that the prosecution
has not been able to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt, the
same cannot be said to be erroneous.
Hence,
leave does not deserve to be granted and therefore, not granted.
(JAYANT PATEL, J.)
(Z.K.SAIYED, J.)
*bjoy
Top