Gujarat High Court High Court

State vs Mukesh on 20 April, 2010

Gujarat High Court
State vs Mukesh on 20 April, 2010
Author: Jayant Patel,&Nbsp;Honourable Z.K.Saiyed,&Nbsp;
   Gujarat High Court Case Information System 

  
  
    

 
 
    	      
         
	    
		   Print
				          

  


	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	


 


	 

CR.MA/11565/2009	 2/ 2	ORDER 
 
 

	

 

IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
 

 


 

CRIMINAL
MISC.APPLICATION No. 11565 of 2009
 

In


 

CRIMINAL
APPEAL No. 1779 of 2009
 

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

 

STATE
OF GUJARAT - Applicant(s)
 

Versus
 

MUKESH
JAMNADAS BARAI - Respondent(s)
 

=========================================================
 
Appearance
: 
MR
LR PUJARI Ld. APP for Applicant(s) : 1, 
None for Respondent(s) :
1, 
=========================================================


 
	  
	 
	  
		 
			 

CORAM
			: 
			
		
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			MR.JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL
		
	
	 
		 
		 
			 

and
		
	
	 
		 
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			MR.JUSTICE Z.K.SAIYED
		
	

 

 
 


 

Date
: 20/04/2010 

 

 
 
ORAL
ORDER

(Per
: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL)

The
present application for leave to prefer appeal is directed against
the judgment and order dated 17.4.2009 passed by the learned Addl.
Sessions Judge, in Special Atrocity (Criminal) Case No. 10/2007,
whereby, the accused has been acquitted for the offence under sec.
436 of IPC and under sec. 3.2(4)(5) of the Scheduled Tribes and
Scheduled Castes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

We
have considered the judgment and reasons recorded by the learned
Addl. Sessions Judge. We have also considered the Records and
Proceedings and heard learned APP for the State.

It
appears to us that there is only one chance witness Ganga Devraj
PW-5, but his testimony is rightly found unbelievable on the basis of
his conduct and remaining silent for about 24 hours. The panchas have
turned to be hostile. The other witnesses are hear-say witness. Under
the circumstances, the involvement of the accused in the incident is
not proved beyond reasonable doubt. There is delay in filing the
complaint for about 24 hours though incident has happened in thickly
populated area.

Under
the circumstances, if the learned Addl. Sessions Judge has found 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, therefore, not granted. Application stand
disposed of accordingly.

(JAYANT
PATEL, J.)

(Z.K.SAIYED,
J.)

mandora/

   

Top