STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. HARSURBHAI R KATHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present appeal, under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is directed against the judgement and order of acquittal dated 25/1/1994 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Amreli in Criminal Case No. 1117 of 1991 whereby the accused were acquitted of the charges leveled against them.

(2.) THE brief facts of the prosecution case are as under:

(3.) I have heard learned APP Mr. A.J. Desai on behalf of the appellant -State. I have gone through the papers of the case and also the judgment and order of the Trial Court. It is contended by the learned APP that the judgment and order of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate is not proper, legal and it is erroneous. He has also contended that the judgment impugned is against the provisions of law, the Trial Court has not properly considered the evidence led by the prosecution and looking to the provisions of law, it is established that the prosecution has proved all the ingredients of the evidence against the present respondents -accused. Learned APP has also taken this Court through the oral as well as the entire documentary evidence. He submitted that from the complaint and judgment of the Trial Court, it is clearly established that the accused persons were found committing offence punishable under Sections 324, 323, 504, 506(2) and 114 of the Indian Penal Code. He further submitted that there was no reason for the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate to disbelieve the prosecution case and to acquit the accused persons. At the outset it is required to be noted that the principles which would govern and regulate the hearing of appeal by this Court against an order of acquittal passed by the trial Court have been very succinctly explained by the Apex Court in a catena of decisions. In the case of M.S. Narayana Menon @ Mani v. State of Kerala and Anr, 2006 6 SCC 39e, the Apex Court has narrated about the powers of the High Court in appeal against the order of acquittal. In para 54 of the decision, the Apex Court has observed as under: