STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. MUSABHAI HARUNBHAI

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 30/11/2005 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge and Fast Track Court No. 7, Khambhaliya in Sessions Case No. 54 of 2005, whereby the respondent herein original accused has been acquitted of the charges levelled against him for the offence punishable under Sections 307, 504 and 506(2) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for brevity, 'the IPC'), however, was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 324 of the IPC and Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act and for the offence punishable under Section 324 of the IPC, he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and a fine of Rs.1,000/ and in default of payment of fine, to undergo, further imprisonment for one month and for the offence punishable under Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act, he was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for one month. The sentences were to run concurrently.

(2.) Brief Facts Of The Prosecution Case Are That On 14/01/2005 At about 16:15 hours in the hutment situated near Mithapur Railway Station at village: Mithapur, Taluka: Dwarka, District: Jamnagar, complainant Rajeshbhai Sendhabhai Pattani had some altercation with the son of the accused about flying of kites and accordingly, the son of the accused called the accused, who in turn abused the complainant and thereafter, brought the sword from his home and assaulted the complainant on his head and other parts of the body, due to which, the complainant sustained severe injuries and for the said alleged offence, a complaint came to be lodged against the accused.

(3.) Mr. L. R. Pujari, Learned Additional Public Prosecutor Appearing for the appellant State has submitted that though the prosecution has successfully proved the offence against the accused, the trial Court committed an error in passing the order of acquittal for the offence punishable under Sections 307, 504 and 506(2) of the IPC. He took us to the medical evidence viz. evidence of Dr. Narbheram Hiradas Gondaliya, exh. 28 where he has narrated in all four injuries and stated that the injuries were of serious nature. However, in his crossexamination he concedes that if the injuries are of serious nature, he usually refers the patients to Jamnagar. The hospitalization of the complainant was of two and a half days. The doctor has also admitted that these injuries can be inflicted if a man goes by walk and fells on a sharp edged substance. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor also took us to the evidence of Gitaben Sendhabhai, exh. 13 and submitted that taking into consideration the evidence of this witness, the presence of the accused at the scene of offence is proved beyond reasonable doubt. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has also taken this Court through the oral as well as the entire documentary evidence and submitted that though the prosecution has proved the case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt and the prosecution witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution in clear terms, the learned Sessions Judge acquitted the accused for the offence punishable under Sections 307, 504 and 506(2), which is contrary to the evidence on record and accordingly, he requested to allow the present appeal.