RAMJIJI RUPSANGJI THAKORE vs THE STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.

Present Criminal Revision Application under Section 397

read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, preferred by the applicant, who is original complainant, challenging the judgment and order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Patan, in Sessions Case No.2 of 2005 dated 8.11.2006, whereby the learned Sessions Judge has acquitted the accused has been acquitted for the offences under Sections 302, 201 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code.

Short facts of the present case are as such that the applicant filed the FIR being C.R. No. I - 7 of 2004 at Sami Taluka Police Station against the respondent Nos.2 and 3, who are original accused Nos.1 and 2 for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 201 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code, wherein it is stated that on 2.2.2004, in the evening hrs., his son had gone to his field for night stay and he usually returned back to home on next day morning. It is also case of the applicant that on 3.3.2004, till 10:00 O''Clock, his son did not return to home and on that day, the Ex-Sarpanch of his village informed the applicant that there was one dead body lying near Kharsol Talav. Therefore, the applicant rushed to the said place, where he found the dead body of his son Manuji. Therefore, he filed aforesaid complaint against the respondent Nos.2 and 3 - original accused Nos.1 and 2. Thereafter, the trial Court tried the Sessions Case and after hearing the parties and considering the evidence, the trial Court acquitted the original accused for the charges levelled against them. Therefore, against the aforesaid judgment and order of acquittal, present Criminal Revision Application is preferred by the applicant.

Learned advocate Mr. S.P. Majmudar appearing for the applicant submitted that there are two independent eye witnesses i.e. Kishordas Maharaj Exhibit 32 and Balaji Bhavji

Thakore Exhibit 38 examined by the prosecution and their evidence are corroborated with each other and both have identified the accused persons. He also submitted that the said two independent witnesses were proceeded for their daily work and on the way, they saw the incident in question and therefore, their witnessing the incident is quite natural. He also submitted that the respondent Nos.2 and 3 i.e. original accused were running liquor den and the deceased used to consume liquor and therefore, in this respect, there was some prior dispute and altercation between the deceased and accused and therefore, keeping the grudge, the accused have committed alleged offence. He also submitted that even the medical evidence of Dr. Girishbhai Danabhai Jhala at Exhibit 55 corroborates the story of the prosecution. He also submitted that even from the point of view of circumstantial evidence, there is complete chain of evidence established against the accused in the present case. He read the complaint and other relevant documents and submitted that from the documentary evidence, it is also established that the accused committed offences as alleged. He therefore, submitted that the impugned judgment and order is required to be quashed and set aside by allowing present Criminal Revision Application.

Heard learned APP Ms. Monali Bhatt appearing for the respondent - State.

Perused the record of the case and considered the submissions made by the learned advocates for the parties. This Court perused the evidence of Kishordas Maharaj examined at Exhibit 32 and from his cross-examination, it appears that he has not identified the accused. It is also stated by this witness in his evidence that there was some altercation

took place between the deceased and some persons. Now, from the evidence of Balaji Bhavaji Thakore examined at Exhibit 38, who has admitted in cross-examination that when he was passing at night hours on the day of incident and on the way, he threw torch light on the four persons, wherein he had seen the accused persons, but he had not given the names of the accused in statement recorded before the police. He had immediately closed the torch light and therefore, this witness cannot be said as reliable witness. Even from the P.M. Note, it appears that the injury caused to the deceased on left hand and therefore, due to much more bleeding, the deceased expired. But it is not transpired that the accused killed the deceased and even there is no medical evidence against the accused. Prima facie, from the records, it is not established that the accused committed such alleged offence also from the documentary evidence. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the trial Court has rightly passed the impugned judgment and order acquitting the accused for the charges levelled against them.

In view of the above, the judgment and order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Patan, in Sessions Case No.2 of 2005 dated 8.11.2006, is hereby confirmed and present Criminal Revision Application is dismissed. Rule is discharged.