STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. JAYANTIBHAI HEMCHANDBHAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ALL these appeals are preferred against judgment and order 18.11.2010 passed by learned Special Judge and Sessions Judge, Patan in Special Case (Atro) No. 11 of 2010. By the said judgment, accused Nos. 1 and 2 both have been acquitted from the charges of offences punishable under Sections 302, 307, 323, 504 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code as well as for offence under Section 3(1)(x) and 3(1)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. While accused No. 1 was convicted for offence punishable under Section 304, Part -II of IPC and ordered to undergo four years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 5,000/ - and in default of payment of fine, further imprisonment of ten days was imposed. Being aggrieved by acquittal of the accused persons the State has preferred Criminal Appeal No. 178 of 2011, while Criminal Appeal No. 179 of 2011 is filed for enhancement of sentence imposed upon accused No. 1 and Criminal Appeal No. 2067 of 2010 is preferred by accused No. 1 against his conviction.

(2.) AS all these appeals are arising out of the same judgment and since the evidence is common in all these appeals, the same are taken up for hearing together. The case of the prosecution is that on 3.12.2009 at about 19.30 hours, at Village -Sankhari, when the complainant Parmar Bharatbhai Kuberbhai was passing near the shop of grain, accused persons abused him by saying "Sala Dheda Amari Upar Te Agau Karel Case Nu Samadhan Kem Karto Nathi -. Thereafter, with an intention to kill him, accused No. 1 inflicted knife blow on his stomach and accused No. 2 inflicted stick blows on his legs and thereby caused grievous injuries to him and he died on 14.12.2009 during the course of treatment.

(3.) MR . Hriday Buch, learned advocate for the accused has taken us through the evidence and submitted that the impugned judgment and order is against the evidence on record. He submitted that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused. He also submitted that the weapon recovered from accused No. 1 is not used to cause death as no blood stains were found on the weapon. He submitted that there are contradictions in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and relying upon them accused No. 1 could not have been convicted for the offence alleged against him. He also submitted that the incident in question occurred in dark night and there was no opportunity to identify the assailants. He also submitted that no motive is proved by the prosecution for the alleged offence. He also submitted that even the medical evidence is not supporting the case of the prosecution, therefore, he submitted that the accused is wrongly convicted by the learned trial Judge and he is required to be acquitted by reversing the impugned judgment.