STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. VANKAR LALJIBHAI CHHAGANBHAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of this appeal, the appellant State has challenged the judgment and order dated 17th December 1992 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Surendranagar, in Criminal Case No. 4084 of 1987 by which the learned Magistrate has acquitted the respondents, original-accused of the offences under Section 326, 323, 435, 114 and Indian Penal Code and Section 135 of Bombay Police Act.

(2.) The case of the Prosecution is that on 24th November 1986 the complainant was at his residence and at 22.00 hours the accused persons in connivance with each other had put fire on the boundary near the house of the complainant. It is further the case of prosecution that accused No.1 had inflicted injuries with dharia and accused No.2 inflicted injuries with stone on the complainant and thereby committed offences punishable under Section 326, 323, 435, 114 and under Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act. It is alleged that the accused have committed offence under Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act by holding prohibitory weapons in public place. After completing the investigation and all formalities the prosecution has filed chargesheet. The prosecution has examined the complainant and other witnesses, namely Ratanben Pitambarbhai at Exh. 48; Dr. M.R. Parmar at Exh. 50; Ratanben Trikambhai at Exh. 52; Pushpaben Trikambhai at Exh. 55; Dr. J.C. Gandhi at Exh. 64; Dr. Indiraben at Exh. 71; and of P.S.I. At Exh. 75 and also produced on record several documents in order to prove the case against the accused.

(3.) The Trial Court has considered the evidence in detail from paragraph No. 8 onwards and also discussed the medical evidence in Para No.11 and the complainant's evidence and of his daughter in para No. 12. The Trial Court has found no connection of the accused in the case of the Prosecution. The Trial Court has considered the evidence of Investigating Officer in Para No. 16 in detail and the Trial Court has held that the investigation is not proper as the T.I. Parade was not conducted and that there are serious lapses. In that view of the matter, considering the lacuna in the case of the prosecution particularly when the accused were found to have not been involved in the offences alleged against them, the Trial Court has acquitted both the opponents, original-accused.