MUSTUFABHAI ABDULHUSSAIN VORA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel Mr. CR Abichandani for the petitioner and Mr. SS Patel learned APP for respondent-State.

(2.) Mr. Abichandani has taken me through the entire record and evidence recorded by the trial court during the course of trial and the relevant documents namely the panchnama of the scene of the incident and Post mortem note. Learned counsel appearing for the parties have taken me through both the judgments i.e. judgment holding the petitioner guilty delivered by the Ld. JMFC and the judgment of learned Addl. Sessions Judge allowing the appeal partly preferred by the present petitioner acquitting him in the main offence punishable under sec. 304A of IPC. While acquitting the accused from the offence punishable under sec. 304A of IPC the ld. Addl. Sessions Judge has confirmed the finding as to the guilt proved against the applicant for the offence punishable under sec. 279 of IPC and also under sec. 177 and 184 of M.V. Act. The Ld. Addl. Sessions Judge has awarded two months S/I and a fine of Rs. 1000/, in default, S/I for one month for the offence punishable under sec. 279 of IPC and for the offence punishable under sec. 177 and 184 of MV Act has awarded S/I of one month and a fine of Rs. 500/, and in default, order to under go 15 days S/I. These sentences were to run concurrently.

(3.) The grievance of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that Ld. Addl. Sessions Judge has failed in appreciating the entire sent of evidence available on record and has considered certain inadmissible part of evidence. Ld. Addl. Sessions Judge has also not considered the material contradiction and the improvement made by the important witnesses of the prosecution side. The Ld. Addl. Sessions Judge ought to have acquitted the accused from all the charges levelled against him. The reasons adopted by the ld. Addl. Sessions Judge holding the accused guilty of the offence, while confirming the order of conviction so far as the offence punishable under sec. 279 of IPC and under sec. 177 and 184 of MV Act are concerned, the Ld. Addl. Sessions Judge has not assigned any cogent and convincing reasons nor has said categorically that he adopts the reasons assigned by the ld. Magistrate. So, technically, the finding recorded by the ld. Addl. Sessions Judge can be said to be based on surmises or inference, which normally the court trying the criminal case is not permitted to draw.