LAWS(GJH)-2020-1-228

STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. AMRA SAMAT RABARI

Decided On January 17, 2020
STATE OF GUJARAT Appellant
V/S
Amra Samat Rabari Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present Criminal Appeal arises out of the judgment and order dated 29.01.1994 passed in Sessions Case No.125 of 1992 whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gondal acquitted all the accused of the offences punishable under Sections 302 read with Section 149, 307 read with Sections 149, 143, 148 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code as well as Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act.

(2.) The prosecution case, in nut shell, is as under:

(3.) Mr.H.K.Patel, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the appellant - State has contended that the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the trial Court is contrary to law and evidence on record. It is contended that trial Court has wrongly discarded the evidence of the eye-witnesses whose evidence is acceptable and believable. It is contended that the presence of prosecution witnesses Pravinsinh Khimaji (Exh.16)and Narvirsinh Khimaji (Exh.17), who are injured eye-witnesses to the incident, at the scene of offence cannot be discarded. It is contended that the evidence of these eye-witnesses is corroborated with the evidence of Jagatsinh Jilubha (Exh.18). It is also contended that medical evidences have supported the case of the prosecution. The injuries sustained by the injured eye-witnesses get corroboration from the medical evidences. However, the trial Court has given much credentials to the minor contradictions and discrepancies appearing in their evidence which has resulted into miscarriage of justice. It is contended that the order of acquittal passed by the trial Court is erroneous, improper and illegal and requires to be quashed and set aside. The respondents herein - original accused need to be convicted for commission of such heinous offence. It is contended that the trial Court has not considered that the respondents herein attacked on the injured eye-witnesses and the deceased and caused fatal injuries. The persons having such mentality or mindset may not be allowed to roam free in the society. Though there is clear evidence of the eye-witnesses supported by the medical evidence has not considered the same and acquitted the respondents herein - original accused of the offences with which they were charged.