ARJUNBHAI KADIYABHAI GAMIT Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These appeals have been filed by the appellants - original accused Nos. 1 and 2 and 3 respectively under Sec. 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the judgement and order dtd. 18/9/2014 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Tapi at Vyara (here in after referred to as the"learned Trial Court') in Sessions Case No. 09 of 2014. Both the appeals have arisen out of the same impugned judgement and order and hence, are disposed off by this common judgement.

(2.) The brief facts necessary to decide the appeal are in a nutshell as under:

(3.) Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgement and order of conviction, the appellant - original accused no. 1 has filed Criminal Appeal No. 131 of 2016 and appellants - original accused nos. 2 and 3 have filed Criminal Appeal No. 990 of 2017 mainly stating that the learned Trial Court has committed a serious error in law in passing the order of conviction. The complainant is not an eye witness to the incident and he came to know about the incident from his father and the whole case is based upon the deposition of the witnesses recorded at Exhs. 12, 16, 18, 19 and 22 and none of the witnesses state that the appellants have given any blow to the deceased. There is no discussion of the wooden sticks in the entire judgement and there is no evidences as to where the muddamal wooden sticks have been produced. That all the witnesses are interested witnesses and their depositions have not been appreciated in the proper manner and the learned Session Judge has not dealt with the cross-examination of the witnesses examined during the course of trial. That in fact, the complainant who is the brother of the accused no. 1 is an interested witness and is a beneficiary of his fathers ancestral agricultural land and if the appellant is in jail, he would be benefited. That all the witnesses are chance witnesses and their evidence has not been appreciated properly by the learned Trial Court. The impugned judgement and order passed by the learned Trial Court is contrary to law and the evidence on record and the learned Trial Court has committed a grave error in holding the appellants guilty for the offence punishable under Sec. 302 of the IPC, as no clear evidence has emerged on record as to which of the appellant had inflicted blows to the deceased. The case of the prosecution suffers from basic infirmities and there are major contradictions about the place of offence and the learned Trial Court ought to have granted the benefit of doubt in favour of the appellants and hence, the impugned judgement and order is required to be quashed and set aside.