STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. SANJAY MOHANBHAI VAGHELA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and order dtd. 17/7/2021 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Anand in Sessions Case No.213 of 2015, whereby, the respondents accused came to be acquitted for the offence under Sec. 143, 147, 148, 307, 504 read with sec. 149 of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred as " IPC " for short), the applicant - State of Gujarat has preferred this application to grant leave to appeal as provided under sec. 378(1)(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ("the Code" for short).

(2.) Briefly stated, it is the case of the prosecution that on 28/6/2015, respondent accused persons were sweeping the land of the complainant and at that time, accused persons started giving filthy abuses to the complainant and despite the complainant's request not to give abuse, the respondents accused persons got provoked and inflicted stick and dhariya blow on the complainant and other witnesses. After the incident, the respondents accused persons left the place by giving abuses to the complainant and other family members and giving threat to their life. Thus, according to the prosecution, all the accused persons with clear intention to cause death of the complainant, assaulted upon the complainant and other witnesses and therefore, FIR was registered being C.R.No.I-95 of 2015 at Anand Rural Police Station for the offence under Sec. 143 , 147 , 148 , 149 , 307 , 323 , 324 and 504 of IPC. In pursuance of the complaint lodged by the complainant, investigating agency collected evidence in form of statement of witnesses and documentary evidence and after having found material against the respondent accused, charge-sheet came to be filed in the Court of learned JMFC, Anand. As said Court lacked jurisdiction to try the offence, it committed the case to the Sessions Court, Anand as provided under sec. 209 of the Code.

(3.) Upon committal of the case to the Sessions Court, learned Sessions Judge framed charge at Exh.7 against the respondents accused for the aforesaid offence. All the respondents accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.