STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. HAJIMIYA SULEMANBHAI SHAIKH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned A.P.P.Mr.K.C.Shah for the State and learned advocate Mr.Divyendu Pathak on behalf of learned advocate Mr.Ramanandan Singh for the respondents extensively. Both the learned counsel for the parties assisted this Court with the papers available with them to go through the appeal. We have perused the copies of the necessary record and evidence as were made available by the learned counsel for the parties and, therefore, a thorough scrutiny has been gone through by us at this stage.

(2.) THE facts reveal that a charge sheet came to be filed from Baroda city police station against both the respondents for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 144, 145, 147, 148, 307, 332, 336, 337, 188 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code as well as under Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act. On committing the said case being Sessions Case No.95 of 2001, both the respondents pleaded not guilty and, therefore, the learned Sessions Judge, Baroda recorded the evidence of prosecution and the statements of the accused under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code were also recorded. After hearing the prosecution and the defence as well extensively, vide judgment and order dated 27.7.2004, both the respondents came to be acquitted by the learned Sessions Judge, Baroda in the above said Sessions case No.95 of 2001 and hence this appeal is preferred by the State against the said judgment and order of acquittal.

(3.) THE incident in question occurred on 17.6.1991 and there was tension in the city of Baroda on account of the pronouncement of results of Parliament elections. The complainant of the case Ajitsinh Danubha Jadeja Head Constable of S.R.P.,was on duty at the point situated near Ajabdhi Mill Four Road in the city of Baroda. Other Constables Nitubha Zala, Karsanbhai Mavjibhai Tadvi, Babubhai and others were also accompanying the complainant on duty at that particular point. At about 16.50 hours though the curfew was imposed in the said areas, the respondent no.1, in breach of such curfew, had kept allegedly his cycle shop open and when he was accosted by the complainant, a crowd of about 150 persons gathered and started pelting stones. It was alleged in the complaint as well that the crowd was insisting to release accused no.1 Hazimiya Sulemanbhai Shaikh, otherwise S.R.P. Constables would be killed. Since the crowd was not dispersing, allegedly two rounds were fired by the complainant in the air and the crowd was dispersed. In the meanwhile, the respondent no.1 escaped from the complainant and gave a blow by iron rod on right leg of the complainant and on account of this blow, the right leg thumb of the complainant received injury as well as on right palm also, the complainant received injuries.