STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. TULSIGIRI MOHANGIRI GOSWAMI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant-State of Gujarat has preferred this appeal under Section 378 (1) (3) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 13.8.2013 passed by learned 6th Additional Sessions Judge, Bhuj-Kutch in Sessions Case No.4 of 2012, whereby the accused-respondent herein came to be acquitted of the charge of offence punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code.

(2.) It is the case of the prosecution that on 10.8.2011 at about 3.15 hours, injured Narendrapuri came at the tea stall of prosecution witness Vinaben Jitendrabhai Thakkar, situated near Main Gate, G.K.General Hospital, Opp. Jal Sevanagar Gate, obtained mobile of Vinaben, the owner of the tea stall and called respondent for having a cup of tea. According to the prosecution case, both had taken tea and thereafter respondent asked injured Narendrapuri about keeping relation with Vinaben and thereby raised quarrel with injured Narendrapuri and inflicted knife blow on left side of back with clear intention to cause death. Therefore, Mahespuri Goswami, who is father of injured Narendrapuri lodged complaint before Police Inspector, Kutch-Bhuj Police Station for alleged incident, which was registered as CR No.I-229/2011 for the offence under Section 307 of IPC and investigation machinery was put into motion.

(3.) Ms.Krina Calla, learned APP appearing for the appellant has submitted that the impugned order of acquittal passed by learned trial Court is contrary to evidence on record and learned trial Judge has failed to appreciate the evidence of injured Narendrapuri Maheshpuri Goswami and the history given by him before Medical Officer. She also submitted that the case of the prosecution is supported by the evidence of father of the injured, who has stated that he has received mobile from Vinaben, whereby she has informed that Tulshigiri gave knife blow to the injured. She has submitted that Vinaben Jitendrakumar Thakkar has stated in her evidence at Exh.29 that quarrel had taken place between the injured Narendrapuri and the accused-Tulshigiri. She also stated that learned trial Judge has erred in holding that looking to the evidence of Vinaben, it is clear that the injured was in drunken condition and he was armed with knife and he himself has called the accused for having tea. She further submitted that even as per the deposition of Dr.Manikant Mishra, Exh.32, he has stated that when the injured came to him for treatment, he has narrated the history wherein it is stated that the accused Tulsigiri had caused the injuries with knife. She has also submitted that learned trial Judge has not properly appreciated FSL report and serological report. She, therefore, prayed to allow present appeal by reversing the finding of the trial Court and convicting the accused for the offence under Section 307 of IPC.