STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. JAGDISHBHAI KAKALDAS VORA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is preferred by the State under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the judgment and order delivered by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Court No.16, Ahmedabad on 19th September, 1997 in Criminal Case No.1922/1991 whereby the present respondent i.e. original accused came to be acquitted by the learned Magistrate for the charges levelled against him under Sections 326, 323 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code. Vide order passed by this Court on 9th February, 1998, this Court [Coram: M.S.Parikh,J.] was pleased to grant leave to appeal and appeal came to be admitted.

(2.) AS per the brief facts of the case, the incident in question occurred at Ahmedabad on 26th October, 1991 and complaint of which came to be filed by Kaushikkumar Kakaldas Vora before the Kalupur Police Station at 22.00 Hours. Accordingly, complainant Kaushikkumar Kakaldas Vora and the accused respondent, both are real brothers. On the date of the incident, at about 6.00 a.m. in the morning, complainant - Kaushikkumar Kakaldas Vora had been to the area known as Padshahni Pole where the accused was residing with his father. According to the complainant, he was accompanied with her sister Madhuben and brother -in -law Mahendrakumar Amratlal Jain. All of them had been to the house of the accused for inquiring about the health of their father and to settle the dispute with the accused about the property of their father and deceased mother. During conversation, complainant party inquired from the accused as to how he recovered ornaments from the locker of the Bank. The accused thereupon was provoked and started giving abuses. The sister Madhuben attempted to pursue the accused, but the accused caught hold her by her hair and had beaten her with fists. The complainant - Kaushikkumar Kakaldas Vora tried to intervene, but the accused caught hold of him and gave bite on tip of the nose of the complainant to the extent that the tip of the nose of the complainant was separated. The incident occurred, according to the complainant, at about 9.00 p.m. The complaint was investigated by the police and ultimately, a chargesheet for the abovesaid offences came to be filed in the Metropolitan Magistrate against the accused respondent herein.

(3.) THE prosecution examined as many as six witnesses on not pleading the guilty by the accused. Both the parties were heard at length. After recording the statement of the accused respondent herein under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure wherein the defence of the accused was that there were disputes amongst the brothers about the property for which the complainant had been to his house quarreling with him for which he had also filed a complaint before the police, because the complainant had beaten him. It was his defence that this complaint came to be filed by the complainant as a counter blast to the complaint filed by him. After hearing both the parties at length, the learned Judge came to the above conclusion that the prosecution could not establish fully the charge against the accused and, therefore, he was entitled to acquittal and hence, this appeal by the State.