PRAVIN MITHABHAI DABHI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The State of Gujarat by way of filing Criminal Appeal No. 850 of 1996 and original accused No. 1 by way of filing Criminal Appeal No. 449 of 1996, before this Court have questioned the impugned judgment and order dated 15.05.1996 passed by the learned Additional City Sessions Judge, Court No. 10, Ahmedabad in Sessions Case No. 252 of 1992 whereby original accused No. 1 has been sentenced to seven years' rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 2000/ -, in default, rigorous imprisonment for three months for the offence under Sec. 304 (Part I) of Indian Penal Code. The accused has, however, been acquitted under Ss. 143, 148, 323, 302 r/w 149 of Indian Penal Code and Sec. 135(1) of B.P. Act. Original accused Nos. 2 to 6 were also acquitted under Ss. 143, 148, 323, 302 r/w 149 of Indian Penal Code and Sec. 135(1) of B.P. Act. Criminal Appeal No. 850 of 1996 is filed against the said acquittal awarded by the trial court whereas Criminal Appeal No. 449 of 1996 is filed against the conviction.

(2.) The facts as per the prosecution case are that on 15.03.1991, the complainant and his brother had gone for their business of selling newspapers and periodicals. It is the case of the prosecution that at around 08.15 pm, accused No. 1 who owns a pan stall near the place of business of the complainant, came there and picked up a Chitralekha. When the complainant demanded money for the same, accused No. 1 threw the magazine and started abusing him. Thereafter, there ensued a verbal exchange between them and in the meantime other accused reached there. It is the case of the prosecution that accused No. 1 went to Lucky Restaurant, picked up a glass and broke it and dashed towards the complainant to cause injury. The complainant with a view to save himself tried to escape from there and ran away. On the way, he met Javed and one Munavar on scooter who were coming from their house. The complainant informed them about the incident. Therefore, they told him to sit on the scooter and all the three went to Lucky Restaurant. At that time all six accused were present there. The accused encircled deceased and gave him fist blows. Thereafter, accused No. 1 who was having a sharp edged weapon with him, gave a blow with it on left flank below abdomen to deceased - Javed. Accused No. 1 also received injuries on his face and hand. The deceased fell down and the accused fled away from the scene of offence. The deceased was taken to hospital where he succumbed to injuries.

(3.) Mr. Nitin Amin, learned advocate appearing for the appellant submitted that the trial court ought not to have convicted the appellant merely on the basis of the deposition of P.W. 3 -Sirajuddin Shaikh, P.W. 4 - Mahebullah and P.W. 5 Munavar - so called eye witnesses. He submitted that the evidence of these witnesses is exaggerated and suffers from infirmities. He submitted that these witnesses are highly interested and untrustworthy.