SURESHKUMAR KESHAVLAL SUVARNA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present Appeal is filed by the appellant -original accused, under Section 374(2) Cr. P.C., against the Judgment and order dated 04.07.2000, passed by the learned Special Judge, Metro-city Court, Ahmedabad (Rural) in Special Case No. 67 of 994. THE said case was registered against the present appellant - original accused for the offence under Section 3(1)(10) of the Scheduled Caste & Schedule Tribe (Prevention of Atrocity) Act and under Section 324 and 506(2) of Indian Penal Code. THE said Judgment of the trial Court has been challenged by the appellant - original accused on the ground that the Judgment and order passed by the trial Court is against the law and evidence on record.

(2.) ACCORDING to the case of prosecution, on 28.2.1994 at about 8.00 P.M. when the complainant and Sanjay Ramubhai were talking in farm, Opp. Gurukrupa Society, the accused, along with two other persons came in fiat car and caught hold of the complainant and told that "why are you going to the house of Manubhai Kanjibhai, who is not returning my money". The complainant replied that "for your money transactions you should deal with Manubhai and only because of our friendship, I am going to his house." Upon saying so, the complainant took out knife and gave blows of knife upon his face, neck, wrist of left hand. It is alleged that other persons caught hold of the complainant. Thereupon the complainant shouted and on hearing the shouts people from the society rushed there. The accused ran away in fiat car. The complainant was thereafter shifted to the hospital. In the Hospital the police was informed by the Medical Officer and the complaint was lodged before the Adalaj Police Station against the accused. The offence was registered against the accused and after investigation the police filed charge-sheet against the accused.

(3.) LEARNED Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant has contended that the Judgment and order of learned trial Judge is contrary to law and evidence on record and is not proper. He has contended that due to enmity with the complainant, he has filed false complaint against the accused. He has contended that from the discovery panchnama it can be seen that there was no blood on the muddamal weapon. He has contended that the panchas have not supported the case of prosecution and they were declared hostile and the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt that the muddamal was discovered as per the provision of Section 27 of the Evidence Act. He has also contended that even from the evidence of Medical Officer the prosecution has not been able to prove its case. He, therefore, contended that looking to the facts of the case the learned Judge has wrongly held the appellant - accused guilty of the charges and, therefore, the judgment and order of conviction and sentence may be quashed.