STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. ZALA INDRAKUMAR BACHUBHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The State has preferred this appeal under Section 378 of the Criminal Procedure Code against the judgment and order dated 12.07.2004 rendered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 2nd Fast Track Court, Dhrangadhra in Sessions Case No.90 of 1998. The said case was registered against the present respondent original accused persons for the offence under Sections 397, 504 and 452 of the Indian Penal Code ("IPC" for short) and also under Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act (herein after referred to as "the Act").

(2.) The case of the prosecution is that the complainant Kanjibhai Valjibhai Patel has filed the complaint to the effect that on 12.10.98 at about 9.45 hrs, when he was present in his shop of pipe and tap, all the accused had come to him. They had come there on the pretext that they wanted to change the pipes purchased from the shop of the complainant or to give their money back and in that regard they started quarreling with the complainant. Their intention was to commit loot in the shop of the complainant. Further, all the accused came to the shop of the complainant armed with lethal weapons i.e. dhariya, stick, pipe and knife and attacked the complainant as well as one Shankarbhai Pitambarbhai Patel and his son and caused injuries to them. Further, they snatched away the service revolver of PSI Shankarbhai Pitambarbhai Patel. With these allegations, the complaint was filed with the Dhrangadhra City Police Station. The police after investigation charge sheeted the accused for the aforesaid offences. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed to be tried. 2.1 In order to bring home the charges against the accused persons, prosecution has examined 12 witnesses and also produced 11 documents in evidence in support of its case.

(3.) Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said judgment and order of acquittal dated 12.07.2004 rendered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 2nd Fast Track Court, Dhrangadhra in Sessions Case No.90 of 1998, the appellant -State has preferred the present appeal before this Court.