STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. KULDIPSINH J KOTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Appeal, under section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, has been filed by the State of Gujarat against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 11.4.1991 passed by the learned Addl.Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad City in Sessions Case No.43 of 1989 for offences punishable under sections 324 and 307 of Indian Penal Code and section 30 of the Arms Act.

(2.) THE facts of the case in brief are that on 9.5.1988 at about 2.30 a.m. Police Constables Takhatsinh and Ambuji were patrolling near oriental building, Relief Road, Ahmedabad. At that time, the respondent-accused along with two other persons ­ Ashok Deviprasad Pande and Kamlakar Indranarayan Shukla were passing on a scooter. The respondent-accused being a PSI, was identified by the two police constables who were patrolling. All the three were in drunken condition. Upon the scooter being stopped, they were found grappling. In the process, the accused caused injury to Ashok and Kamlakar whereupon all the three were taken to Kalupur police station. At about 3.15 a.m, complainant PSI Bagale brought all the three into the chamber of the Police Inspector. The clothes of all the three were blood stained. The respondent-accused was in plain dress and the service revolver was in the holster tied around his waist. While PSI Bagale was interrogating the accused, the accused removed the revolver and pointed at PSI Bagale. On noticing this, PSI Bagale pushed away the hand of the accused and changed the direction of the revolver but by the time the bullet went off and hit the glass of the cupboard which was in the chamber of the Police Inspector and the glass was broken and the bullet had entered into the cupboard. PSI Bagale then snatched the revolver from the accused. The accused was earlier working as PSI in Kalupur police station and at the time of the incident, he was PSI in Bhavnagar police station but he was on commuted leave. FIR was registered being CR.I 550 of 1999 for offences punishable under sections 324 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code and offence under section 30 of the Arms Act. As the offences were triable only by the Sessions Court, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions under section 209 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

(3.) TO prove the case, the prosecution has examined as many as seven witnesses ­ PW 1 Arun Ramchandra , PSI, Exh.8, PW 2 Shubhanrao Laljangle, Exh.9, PW 3 Takhatsinh Raisinh, Exh. 12, PW 4 Jayantilal Laxmandas Rami, panch Exh,13, PW 5 Viswambhar Dayal Kalicharan Exh.15, PW 6 Mahendra Rameshchandra Thakar, Exh.16 and PW 7 Becharsinh Ranjitsinh Champavat, Exh. 26. Vide closing pursis at Exh.30 dated 3.4.1991 the learned APP has shown the reasons for non-examination of witnesses Ashok and Kamlakar.