STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. BALRAM DULILAL MEENA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned APP Ms. Jirga Jhaveri for the appellant - State and learned advocate Mr. V.A. Mansuri for respondent No. 1 and learned advocate Mr. R.S. Joshi with Mr. Mrugen Purohit for respondent No. 3 at length.

(2.) The State has fled this acquittal appeal challenging the judgment and order dtd. 19/5/2010 passed by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Panchmahal at Godhra in Sessions Case No. 113 of 2007 for the offences punishable under Ss. 308, 337, 427 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code and Sec. 3 of the Public Property Act.

(3.) The brief facts of the case are that on 5/1/2007 original accused No. 3 Mahmmad Husen Manubhai Sumra, resident of Railway Colony, Dakor. resident of was serving as Switchman at Champaner Railway Station. Original accused No. 3 knew that there was Gandhidham Shalimar goods train standing at Down Loop Line of Champaner Railway Station. He was having instructions of passing running through goods train named Konraj T.K.D. Goods train and it was to pass through down main line of Champaner Railway station. The duty ought to have been discharged by the accused No. 3 to clean the track and line of Konraj T.K.D. Goods train in order to avoid damages to life of train driver as the goods train. However, the original accused train. No. 3 though knowing fully well that it could cause an accident, gave signal no. 28 to Konraj T.K.D. allowing it to pass as running through from Down Loop Line track on which there was already goods train standing on the track, which ultimately caused an accident between Gandhidham Shalimar Goods train standing at Champaner Railway station and T.K.D. Konraj Goods train passing through Champaner Railway Station. As such though original accused No. 3 was having knowledge as a part of his duties, gave wrong signal and caused an accident which could be caused death of engine driver and it also caused damages to the public property worth of Rs.4.31 Crores. Likewise, duties of original accused Nos. 1 and 2 were to give signals to train passing through station that too only after checking station report and clear tracks through which such train passes through as soon as they receive signal from concerned railway station. However, without maintaining all these things and without clearing track for train these accused had given signal no. 28 pass to T.K.D Konraj Goods train to pass through on down loopline which they received from Champaner railway station and as such they are also held liable for offences with which original No. 3 was charged. On fling of the complaint being Janva Jog Entry No. 2 of 2007, PSI Thaakar inspected the place of offence, drew necessary panchnamas in presence of panchas and sent Muddamal to FSL and as he found that there are ample evidences against present accused and sufficient materials against the accused respondents, he prepared charge sheet the against accused and submitted the same before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Railway Court, Godhra, where it was registered a Criminal Case No. 10872 of 2007. Since offence under sec. 308 of IPC is exclusively sessions triable, the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class. Railway Court, Godhra after verifying whether the accused had been given necessary police papers or not, committed the case to the Court of Sessions as per sec. 209 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, where it was registered as Sessions Case No. 113 of 2007. The learned Sessions Judge, Godhra after hearing the parties framed charges against the accused respondents vide Exh. 4 and pleas of accused respondents were recorded vide Exh. 3 wherein accused denied their involvement and pleaded to be tried. To prove its case, the prosecution has examined several witnesses and has produced several evidences. Prosecution fled closing pursis for evidence vide Exh. 81. Further statements of accused were recorded as per sec. 313 of Cr.P.C. wherein also they denied their involvement. At the end of trial, the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Panchmahal at Godhra, vide his judgment and order dtd. 19/5/2010 acquitted the accused respondents of the offences with which they were charged. Therefore, appellant State of Gujarat has preferred appeal under sec. 378(1)(3) of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 against order of acquittal.