JIVANBHAI PREMJIBHAI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is filed against the judgment and order dated 1.8.1998 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Surat in Sessions Case No.147 of 1995, whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge has convicted the present appellant-accused for the offences punishable under Sections 307 and 332 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four years and pay fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for further three months for the offence punishable under Section 307 of Indian Penal Code and rigorous imprisonment for six months and pay fine of Rs.400/-, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for further one month for the offence punishable under Section 332 of Indian Penal Code.

(2.) THE brief facts leading to filing of this appeal are such that first information report came to be lodged by one Maheshbhai Amratlal who is serving in the Malaria Department of Surat Municipal Corporation that on 14.12.1994 when he was on duty, one Muljibhai came to him and stated that one of the rojkamdar Ramesh Haribhai has been assaulted by knife by somebody. On inquiring from the injured as to who assaulted him, he stated that one Munna inflicted the blows. THEreafter, after the investigation, the police filed the charge sheet for the offences punishable under Section 307, 333 of the Indian Penal Code. THE case was committed to the Court of Sessions, who framed the charge against the accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. After recording the evidence and after hearing the learned advocates for both the parties, the learned Additional Sessions Judge passed the impugned judgment and order, against which this appeal is filed.

(3.) ON going through the evidence of Medical Officer who gave treatment to the complainant-injured and also issued the certificate, there was no injury on vital part and the injuries received by the injured are not serious in nature. It is also submitted by the doctor that when injured was admitted in hospital, he was conscious and he remained in hospital for three days and throughout he was conscious and he was discharged after three days and at that time also, he was conscious. As per the evidence of this doctor, he was fully conscious and he was able to speak. Prosecution has examined total thirteen witnesses and out of them, except the complainant, doctor and investigating officer, all other witnesses turned hostile and did not support the case of the prosecution.