LAWS(GJH)-2015-10-56

STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. GULABSHA GIGASHA FAKIR

Decided On October 14, 2015
STATE OF GUJARAT Appellant
V/S
Gulabsha Gigasha Fakir Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present appeal, under section 378(1)(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity, 'the Code') is directed against the judgment and order dated 03/02/2005 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Jamnagar in Sessions Case No. 49 of 2004, whereby the respondent herein - original accused has been acquitted of the charges levelled against him for the offence punishable under Section 279, 304, 304(A) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for brevity, 'the IPC') and Sections 134, 177 and 184 of the Motor Vehicles Act (for brevity, the M.V. Act).

(2.) THE brief facts of the prosecution case are that on 21/01/2004, the complainant and others were going for folk -drama from Umarkot to Kalavad for which, they hired the rickshaw of the respondent herein - original accused from Dhoraji, for Rs. 300/ -. On the way, the accused and complainant and others drank liquor at village Rajpara and then, resumed the journey and when they reached near village Toda at bridge, Magannath Devnath, the deceased and nephew of the complainant, asked the accused to let him drive the rickshaw to which, the accused denied and hence, the deceased tried to forcibly take the control of the rickshaw for driving and hence, the accused allegedly pushed the deceased due to which, the deceased fell down and allegedly, collided with the front wheel of the following truck and sustained injuries to which, he ultimately succumbed and for the said alleged offence, a complaint came to be lodged against the accused.

(3.) ON the other hand, Mr. Ahuja, the learned advocate appearing for the respondent - original accused, supported the impugned judgment and order and submitted that the same having been passed in accordance with law, does not call for any interference. It is submitted that the prosecution has failed to prove the case against the respondent beyond reasonable doubt. Further he contended that this is an appeal against conviction and the trial Court, after due appreciation of evidence, has granted accused the benefit of doubt and held that the accused is not responsible for the alleged incident. He submitted that, even if two views are possible, it will not be proper to reverse the findings arrived at by the trial Court. Eventually, it is requested that this Court should not interfere in appeal.