STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. PATEL ANIL KANJI KAPADIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Criminal Appeal No. 286 of 2006 is preferred by the State of Gujarat under section 378 [1] (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ["CrPC" for short] against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 21st October 2004 passed in Sessions Case No. 75 of 1997 by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge & 4th Fast Track Judge, Junagadh whereby the respondents are acquitted of offence punishable under Sections 307, 504 read with Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act by giving benefit of doubt.

(2.) Short facts giving rise to both the above proceedings are as under : -

(3.) Learned Public Prosecutor Mr. Mitesh Amin has taken us to the evidence and submitted that the learned trial Judge ought to have believed in toto, the evidence of PW -1 Dr. Ashok Narhari, the Medical Officer of Government Hospital at Junagadh who was examined vide Exh. 13 and deposed that while he was discharging his duties on 30th January 1997, Rajesh Nagdanbhai Gohil was brought before him in an injured condition and was admitted in Surgical Ward for treatment. However, for better treatment and looking to nature of injuries, he was referred to Civil Hospital, Rajkot and in his testimonies above, witness has clearly deposed that four external injuries over the person of the injured may be caused by sharp cutting instrument and possibility of usage of knife for inflicting such injuries was not ruled out. It was further opined that three injuries were serious in nature and on the vital parts of the body and if prompt and timely treatment is not given, patient or injured person could succumb to injuries was also not ruled out. Likewise, another PW -10 Mansukh Rameshchandra at Exh. 46, complainant and who also happens to be brother of Capt. Satish at whose office incident in question had taken place and witnessed the incident, in his testimonies, it is deposed that upon receiving a telephonic message from peon of the office of Capt. Satish, he alongwith Rajesh immediately reached at the place of incident and when Rajesh was parking the vehicle and while he was going towards office and about to reach the first floor, he heard some noise and upon seeing back, found Rajesh was cornered by three persons who were abusing and asking about Capt. Satish and thereafter they started inflicting knife blows over right shoulder of Rajesh. The complainant Mansukh Rameshchandra caught hold of Anil Kanji, but two other assailants A2 & A3 started giving knife blows over Rajesh and severely injured him. The above witness also described the manner in which injuries were inflicted on the body of the person and usage of knife by the assailant concerned. The very complainant had taken injured to the Government Hospital. Both the above testimonies ought to have been considered in proper perspective since the key witness namely injured Rajesh Nagdanbhai Gohil -PW 11 narrates the manner in which he was assaulted, when he reached the office of Captain Satish upon receiving telephonic message from an office Peon named Kanji. Initially, he was abused and thereafter inflicted repeatedly knife blows over his body on vital parts. The fact about occurrence of incident remained undisputed and in the testimony of Kanji Pandav -office Peon [PW 12 : Exh. 51], the genesis of crime is fully disclosed. It is submitted that the case of prosecution is established by unimpeachable testimonies of the above witnesses duly supported by version of PW -15 Gunvantlal Hiralal, who was serving as Police Sub Inspector at Junagadh Police Station at the relevant point of time and recorded complaint and further of Investigating Officer namely Bhagwanbhai Tabhabhai [PW -17 : Exh. 70]. Both the above Police personnels stand by their version and support the case of prosecution and the course of investigation undertaken viz., arrest of the persons and seizure of muddamal articles discovered by drawing panchnama under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. Though panchas have turned hostile, the contents of panchnama stood proved and minor contradictions, insignificant discrepancies, trivial inconsistencies and inconsequential omissions in testimonies of above witnesses ought not to have weighed with the learned trial Judge while ordering acquittal of the respondents, who were involved in a serious offence.