STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. RANJITSINH HARISINH CHAUHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned APP Mr.K.C.Shah for the appellant State.

(2.) We along with learned APP thoroughly have gone through the judgment and order, which is impugned in this acquittal appeal and other necessary papers. The present opponents were charged for the offences punishable under Sections 307, 504 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 25(c) of the Arms Act as well as under Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act. Both the opponents came to be acquitted for the charges levelled against them by judgment and order dated 21.02.2003 delivered by the Joint District Judge and Additional Sessions Judge, 2nd Fast Track Court, Dahod in Sessions Case No.281/1998. The incident has taken place on 10.09.1997 at about 7.30 p.m. The accused, as alleged rushed towards the complainant, abused him and threatened that why police complaint was given by the complainant before five months against them when nobody had dared in the past to file such complaint. Thereafter, both the accused from the roof of their respective house fired gun while complainant concealed himself in his own house, but the wife of the brother of the complainant Lalitaben Madhusingh and nephew Hitesh Devisingh, who were on backyard of the house of the complainant were injured by palates of such firing. At Dahod Rural Police Station, complainant gave FIR at 0.30 hours, which was registered as C.R.No.I-97/1997 under the above said offences.

(3.) On submitting charge-sheet, about 17 witnesses were examined by the prosecution, while voluminous documents were also produced. While going through the papers carefully and evidence recorded as well as the reasoning of the trial Court, it becomes crystal clear that from the evidence of so-called injured and the complainant, material contradictions surface so as not to place reliance on their testimony. Learned trial Judge has elaborately discussed this aspect in paragraph 9 of the judgment, while dealing with issues No.1, 2 and 3. In addition to this, it could not be proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt that the injury caused to the palates came to be fired from the muddamal gun and, therefore, the learned Judge came to the conclusion that the presence of the eye witnesses becomes doubtful and after following a decision of the Apex Court, came to the conclusion that when the eye witnesses were not credible and their presence was doubtful, it was not possible to convict the accused on the evidence of the prosecution, which was recorded before the Court.