STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. SIDDHARTH MULJIBHAI PARMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present appeal, under section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is directed against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 8.11.1993 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Nadiad, in Sessions Case No. 8/1990, whereby, the learned trial Judge acquitted the original accused the respondents herein, of the charges for the offence punishable under Section 341,347,348,331, 323, 325,504, 506(2) read with section 34 and 144 of IPC.

(2.) THE brief facts of the prosecution case are that on 9.2.88 the accused who are thepolice personnel had come to the shop of the younger brother of the complainant situated behind S.T. Bus Stand of Kathlal, where the brother of the complainant is doing the business of black -smith for preparing the agricultural instruments and for that they have kept one electric motor. The accused persons were inquiring about the theft of an electric motor and during that investigation accused no. 1 and 2 who are Police SubInspectors got excited and annoyed and started abusing the younger brother of complainant and then took him along with them. The accused had taken the younger brother of the complainant to Mahudha Police Station and had beaten him severely for getting the confession of the theft. The accused had caused fracture and grievous hurt to the younger brother of the complainant and had also abused with filthy language and had also threatened while allowing him to be free. Therefore, the complainant had filed a private complaint before the Court of Ld. Judicial Magistrate First Class, Nadiad, which was registered as Inquiry Case No. 22/1988, in which the Court had found the accused guilty of the offence under section 331 of IPC. As the case was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the learned Magistrate has committed the case to the Court of Sessions, which was numbered as Sessions Case No. 8/1990. The trial was initiated against the respondents.

(3.) TO prove the case against the present accused, the prosecution has examined 5 witnesses and also produced 5 documentary evidence, which are accepted in evidence and exhibited.