STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. ALI ABA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant, State of Gujarat, has preferred this acquittal appeal against the judgment and order dated 29/2/1980 rendered by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class at Kodinar in Criminal Case No. 750/79. The appeal was filed against the original accused Nos. 1 to 4, but this Court granted the leave and admitted the appeal only so far as accused No.1 was concerned and the appeal was dismissed against the rest by an order dated 9/4/1981. Mr. S.T. Mehta, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, took me through the judgment as well as other evidence on record, particularly the evidence of Dr. Kundanlal Desibhai Parmar (P.W.4, Exh.20). The prosecution case was that the complainant Ibrahim Raja has a son, Hasan by name, who is running a grocery shop at Kodinar. The accused No.1, Ali Aba, against whom the appeal is admitted, had gone to the shop of Hasan to take one Kilogram of Sugar on credit. Hasan has refused to sell sugar on credit to Ali Aba who there upon got annoyed and assaulted Hasan on his hand and thigh with a knife. By that time, the other accused, Mamad Hasan, Majid Hasan and Ikbal Hasan, against whom the appeal is dismissed, rushed to the scene of occurrence and gave fist blows and kick blows to Hasan. They also caused damage in the shop of the extent of Rs. 70/-. Thereafter, Hasan took treatment and his father lodged a complaint with the Police. The Trial Judge has acquitted all the accused on the following grounds:

(2.) Although the incident occurred at about 8.00 p.m. at Kodinar, the complaint was lodged at about 2.00 a.m. i.e. to say after delay of about six hours. The delay is not explained. The Trial Judge has also noted that although Dr. Parmar examined Hasan at about 10.45 p.m. a Yadi was recorded at the Kodinar Police Station (Exh. 22), but no further investigation was made on the strength of that Yadi (Exh. 22). It also transpires from the evidence of Baba Saiyed (Exh. 17) that at the time of the occurrence of the incident, the police was present even then no cognizable offence was registered and nothing was done for the investigation of that incident, nor is any explanation forthcoming as to why no investigation was made although police was present at the time of the commission of the cognizable offence. The trial Judge rightly observes that these deficiencies do cast a shadow of doubt on the prosecution case.

(3.) Dr. Parmar has deposed that he examined Hasan at about 10.45 p.m. and at that time the two wounds were bleeding. It is surprising that the injuries which were allegedly caused at 8.00 p.m. were bleeding even at 10.45 p.m. This fact also creates a doubt about the veracity of the prosecution case.