STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. THAKOR CHANDANJI VIRCHANDJI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Present appeal u/S. 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 arises out of the judgment and order dated 1st April 1992 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mehsana, Camp: Patan, ( hereinafter referred to as 'the learned Sessions Judge') in Sessions Case Nos. 160 of 1990, whereby, the learned Sessions Judge was pleased to acquit all the accused of the charge under Sections 302, 323 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act.

(2.) Brief facts of the prosecution case are that on 3rd May 1990, the deceased - complainant had gone to the place of accused No. 1 herein - Thakor Chandanji Virchandji at Tajpur area, of Vareda village of Patan Taluka to recover an amount of Rs.30/ - lent to the latter. While demanding money from accused - respondent No. 1 herein, they had some exchange of words. The accused No. 1, out of anger, assaulted the deceased - complainant by delivering knife blow, below chest on right side. The accused No. 1 was also abusing the deceased - complainant. He then, assaulted the deceased with a wooden log on the right hand and also below the neck on right side. The respondent - accused Nos. 2 to 4 abetted the offence. After that, the deceased - complainant ran away from the place of incident. At that time, he met one Sardarji Mohanji, who rushed to village Vareda and called the father of the deceased - complainant. They then took the deceased - complainant to Patan Civil Hospital. As the deceased - complainant was so serious, the Medical Officer informed the Patan City Police. The Executive Magistrate, Patan was also informed to record the Dying Declaration of the deceased - complainant. Consequently, Executive Magistrate recorded the Dying Declaration of the deceased - complainant. From there, the deceased - complainant was shifted to Ahmedabad Civil Hospital, where, ultimately, he died on the next day. Accordingly, the accused committed the offence as above for which complaint had been lodged against them.

(3.) Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment and order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, the appellant - State has preferred the present appeal.