STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. HANUMANTA BASRAJ MANDAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal preferred by the State under Sec. 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, challenging the judgment and order dtd. 15/7/1997 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Surat in Sessions Case No. 198 of 1995, whereby, the respondent herein has been acquitted of the charge for an offence punishable under Ss. 302 , 504 of IPC and Sec. 135 of the Bombay Police Act.

(2.) The short facts of the matter are such that one Basappa Savappa Madar lodged a complaint with the Ichhapore Police Station of Surat City to the effect that on 20/5/1995 at night, the accused i.e. Hanumanta Basraj Madar was abusing the complainant and his wife. Thereafter, the accused came to his place with an axe in his hand and inflicted a blow with the axe on his son Chandrashekhar who received serious fatal injuries and succumbed to the same. On the basis of the said FIR, an offence being Ichhapore Police Station I CR No. 61/1995 came to be registered against the accused i.e the present respondent for offences punishable under Ss. 302 , 504 of IPC and Sec. 135 of the Bombay Police Act. The investigating agency, after completion of investigation, filed charge sheet against the respondent for the aforesaid offences before the court of learned Magistrate, who in turn, in view of the provision of Sec. 209 of Cr.P.C, committed the case to the court of session as the offences alleged against the respondent were exclusively triable by the court of Session. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Surat framed the charge against the respondent for the aforesaid offences vide Ex.3 on 25/4/1996. The respondent, having pleaded not guilty for these offences, was put to trial. The prosecution had adduced oral as well as documentary evidence to prove the charge framed against the respondent. Ld. Session Judge vide impugned judgment and order, was pleased to give benefit of doubt to the respondent and acquit him of the charge framed against him. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the same, the State has preferred the present appeal.

(3.) Heard Ld. APP Ms. C M Shah for the Appellant State. She submitted that the entire case of prosecution rests upon the direct evidence in the form of two eyewitnesses who happen to be the parents of the deceased Chandrashekhar. The alleged incident has taken place in the house of these witnesses, and therefore, their presence at the scene of offence is quite natural. Both these witnesses have clearly stated the manner in which the incident took place and have thus, supported the case of prosecution. Learned Session Court has committed an error in relying upon the minor contradictions in the deposition of these witnesses. These contradictions were not at all fatal to the case of prosecution. The deposition of the eyewitnesses, if considered in proper perspective, would prove the guilt of the respondent beyond reasonable doubt. The medical evidence in the form of PM note and the deposition of the doctor who performed the PM upon the body of the deceased, would also corroborate and support the case of prosecution. She therefore, submitted to allow the present appeal and quash and set aside the impugned judgment and order and convict the respondent for the charge framed against him and punish him in accordance with law.