STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. MOHAMEDSALIMKHAN ZARINKHAN PATHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal, under section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity, 'the Code') is directed against the judgment and order dated 27/06/1994, passed by the learned Additional City Sessions Judge, Court No. 20, Ahmedabad, in Sessions Case No. 285 of 1989, whereby the respondent herein ­ original accused has been acquitted of the charges levelled against him for the offences punishable under Sections 307 and 332 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for brevity, 'the IPC') and Section 135(1) of the Bombay Police Act.

(2.) Brief facts of the prosecution case are that on 25/12/1988 at about 11:00 a.m. on Kalupur Station Road, near Motibhai Hirabhai Market, near the cabin of Municipal Controller, the respondent herein ­ original accused since was quarreling with one Mahesh Parmanand, original complainant ­ Vikramsinh Udaysinh Chavda, an Unarmed Police Constable, who was on duty, intervened and separated them and keeping grudge of the same, the respondent ­ accused, allegedly attacked the complainant with a wooden plank and thereby, caused severe injuries to him. Thus, the respondent accused committed the offence alleged against him, for which, a complaint came to be lodged.

(3.) We have heard Ms. Shruti Pathak, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, for the appellant ­ State and Mr. Manraj Barot, learned advocate for the respondent ­ original accused. 3.1 Ms. Pathak, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the appellant State has submitted that the trial Court committed an error in acquitting the respondent accused. It was contended by her that the judgment and order of the Sessions Court is against the provisions of law; the Sessions Court has not properly considered the evidence led by the prosecution and looking to the provisions of law itself, it is established that the prosecution has proved the whole ingredients of the offence, alleged against the present respondent. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has also taken this Court through the oral as well as the entire documentary evidence and submitted that considering the evidence of complainant ­ Vikramsinh Udaysinh Chavda, exh. 12 and the medical evidence, the prosecution has successfully proved its case against the respondent beyond reasonable doubt, however, the learned trial Judge did not believe the same and has acquitted the respondent accused and thereby, has committed a grave error of law and evidence on record, which requires to be rectified by this Court. Eventually, she requested to allow the present appeal.