STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. MOHMEDHUSAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The complainant-State being aggrieved by the Judgment delivered by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Vadodara in Sessions Case no. 118 of 1997 on 03/05/1999, has preferred the present appeal under Sec. 378(1)(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 against the respondent-accused. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Vadodara, was pleased to acquit the respondent-accused under Sec. 235 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the charge under Sec. 302 of the Indian Penal Code read with Sec. 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The FIR, which is on record vide Exh.17 was lodged and consequently registered on 20/04/1995, against the present respondent-accused as well as Co-accused Mehndi Hassan Mohhammad Umar Pathan, who is absconding till date. Thus, the trial court had proceeded only against the present respondent-accused.

(2.) Heard Ms. Jirga Jhaveri, learned APP on behalf of the appellant - State, who, at the outset has submitted that the judgment of acquittal passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Vadodara is contrary to law, evidence on record and facts of the case. According to Ms. Jhaveri, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge had not appreciated and evaluated the oral, as well as the documentary evidence which was rendered by the prosecution in its true perspective and in spite of there being ample direct and indirect evidence to connect the respondent- accused with the crime, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge had erred in acquitting him. Ms. Jhaveri has also submitted that, the learned Trial Court ought to have appreciated and considered the evidence of eye witnesses viz. Samimkhan Basirkhan Pathan (Exh.18), Islamkhan Nisamkhan. Pathan (Exh.19), Jalilkhan Khalilkhan Pathan (Exh.20) and Amjad Khan (Exh.21), who have in fact have supported the prosecution case, however, the learned Trial Court has erred by disbelieving their depositions. Ms. Jhaveri has also submitted that, the FIR at Exh.17 was amply corroborated by the versions of the eye witnesses, the medical evidence and the FSL report, however, by not considering and not accepting the same, the learned Trial Court had caused grave injustice to the complainant State.

(3.) Mr. Jitendra Malkhan, learned advocate representing the respondent-accused, though called-out, did not remain present.