STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. DILIPKUMAR JETHALAL TANNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE appeals, under sections 377 and 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity, 'the Code'), are directed against the judgment and order dated 24/07/1998 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gondal in Sessions Case No. 15 of 1996, by which, the learned trial Judge was pleased to convict the original accused No. 2 for the offence punishable under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for brevity, 'the IPC') and sentence to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and a fine of Rs. 500/ - and in default of payment of fine, further to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 15 days, whereas, acquitted all the accused for the offence punishable under Sections 452, 307, 506(2), 302, 34 and 114 of the IPC and Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act.

(2.) THE brief facts of the prosecution case are that on 26/09/1995 at about 2:30 p.m. when complainant - Jaykrushna Popatlal Lohana was there at his residence, original accused Nos. 1 and 2 along with other two persons, came there on scooter and called the complainant out and hence, the complainant opened the door and stood at the doorstep, at that time, the accused assaulted the complainant with knife. The accused No. 2 gave a knife blow near the stomach on the left side and hence, the complainant shouted due to which, the daughter, the wife and the maid of the complainant came out. The accused then, threatened to kill the complainant if the complainant would not vacate his premises and then, all the four accused persons went away from there and while leaving, they threatened the complainant that they would go to their factory and kill the son of the complainant. Thereafter, the complainant went to the hospital where his statement was recorded by the Executive Magistrate and was treated by the doctor, at that time, dead -body of son of the complainant namely Parag in bleeding condition was brought there. Accordingly, complaint came to be lodged against the accused for the offence alleged against them.

(3.) WHEREAS , Mr. Lakhani, learned senior advocate for the respondent - original accused, also took us to the evidence on record and contended that majority of independent witnesses have turned hostile and nothing has come on record to show that the accused entered the factory premises of the deceased and assaulted the deceased and thereby, committed the offence alleged against them and accordingly, the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the involvement of the accused, more particularly, the second incident occurred at the factory premises of the deceased and accordingly, when the prosecution has failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt the charge levelled against the accused and when the learned trial Judge has dealt with each and every aspect of the matter, he requested that this Court may not interfere in the appeal.