MALSINGHBHAI HARLABHAI NAYAK Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) It was submitted by learned advocate for the applicant that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. That Learned Sessions Judge has erroneously convicted the present applicant by relying upon the prosecution witnesses, who have not supported the case of the prosecution. That, learned Trial Court has simply brushed aside the entire cross examination of the prosecution witnesses without appreciating the fact that the prosecution has failed to establish the series of alleged events and even the circumstantial evidence by corroborating it by examining credible independent witnesses. It was submitted by learned advocate for the applicant to suspend the sentence imposed upon the present applicant by enlarging the applicant on bail till final disposal of the main appeal.

(2.) Learned APP for the respondent ?State has strongly objected the submissions made by learned advocate for the applicant and requested to reject present application.

(3.) It appears that after completing the trial, the learned Trial Court, Bhavnagar in Sessions Case No.30 of 2019 convicting the present applicant under Section 304 Part ?I of the Indian Penal Code for rigorous imprisonment of ten years. Being aggrieved by the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Chhotaudepur dated 20.11.2019, Criminal Appeal No.639 of 2020 is preferred by the present applicant which was admitted by this Court on 27.07.2020. In connection with the offence allegedly committed by the present applicant, the offence was registered punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code with Rangpur Police Station. The applicant was arrested and final report came to be filed against him for the offence punishable unde Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. From the prosecution side in the trial, 5 witnesses have been examined and 19 documentary evidences were produced. It appears that the witnesses examined by the prosecution have not supported the case of the prosecution and they were turned hostile. Cross examination of these witnesses were permitted to be prosecution and however, they have not supported the case of the prosecution. The learned Sessions Judge has also observed in his judgment of not supporting the case of the prosecution by the aforesaid witnesses. Only Investigating Officer examined by the prosecution has supported the case of the prosecution and relying upon the evidence of the Investigating Officer, the learned Judge came to the conclusion in convicting the present applicant under Section 304 Part ?I of the Indian Penal Code .