STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. LAKHAJI DHARMAJI THAKOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Appeal is filed by the appellant - State of Gujarat under Sec. 378 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 against the judgment and order dtd. 10/5/1994 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Banaskantha at Palanpur in Sessions Case No.76 of 1993 acquitting the respondents - original accused Nos.1 to 4 from the offence punishable under Sec. 302 , 323 , 326 , 34 and 114 of Indian Penal Code and 135 of Bombay Police Act.

(2.) The factual matrix as narrated by the prosecution case stands as under:

(3.) Ms.C.M. Shah, learned APP for the appellant State has vehemently argued that the Sessions Judge has committed a grave error in not believing the deposition of the witnesses examined by the prosecution and evidence adduced by the prosecution. She has further submitted that the Sessions Judge has erred in acquitting the respondents - accused from the charges levelled against them. She has further argued that the prosecution has proved that the respondents have committed offence under Sec. 302 , 323 , 326 , 34 and 114 of Indian Penal Code and under sec. 135 of the Bombay Police Act. She has further argued that Sessions Judge has acquitted the respondents accused merely on some minor contradictions and omissions in the evidence of the witnesses. She has further argued that the Sessions Judge has erred in not believing the evidence of the investigating officer who had no reason to implicate the accused falsely in the case. She has further argued that the offence punishable under Sec. 302 , 323 , 326 , 34 and 114 of Indian Penal Code and under sec. 135 of the Bombay Police Act is made out, however, the same is not believed by the Sessions Judge. She has further argued that though the prosecution witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution, the Sessions Judge erroneously not believed their evidence and acquitted the accused. She has further argued that the Sessions Court has erroneously held that the prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt and so, she has requested to allow the present appeal.