STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. GANPATBHAI MANILAL RATHOD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal, under section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is directed against the judgement and order dated 08.03.2006 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 5, Bharuch, Camp - Ankleshwar in Sessions Case No. 64 of 2005 whereby the accused has been acquitted of the charges leveled against him.

(2.) The brief facts of the prosecution case are that on 14.03.2005, at about 10.00 pm, the deceased - Jentibhai Mathurbhai Vasava and the accused went for fishing. At around 12.00 in the midnight, the complainant heard shouts of the deceased Jentibhai. The complainant went to the place from where the shout had come. At that time, the wife of deceased and one Budhiben also reached there. On reaching, the complainant saw the deceased in a bleeding condition. It is the case of the prosecution that the accused gave an axe blow on the head of the the deceased. It is the case of the prosecution that when the accused was asked the reason for the assault, he inflicted axe blow on the leg of the complainant as well. It is the case of the prosecution that the complainant was informed that there erupted a dispute over distribution of fish between the accused and deceased and therefore the accused assaulted the deceased. The accused ran away from the scene of offence. A complaint was therefore lodged by the complainant. The deceased was taken to hospital for treatment but he succumbed to the injuries. Pursuant to the complaint, investigation was carried out. After investigation, charge-sheet was filed and as the case was triable by the Court of Sessions, it was committed to the Court of Sessions.

(3.) Mr. L.R. Pujari, learned APP appearing for the appellantState has submitted that the trial court committed an error in releasing the respondents-accused. It was contended by Mr. Pujari that the judgement and order of the Sessions Court is against the provisions of law; the Sessions Court has not properly considered the evidence led by the prosecution and looking to the provisions of law itself it is established that the prosecution has proved the whole ingredients of the evidence against the present respondents. Learned APP has also taken this court through the oral as well as the entire documentary evidence.