STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. DHUSARAM MORAJI RANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal under Section -378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ("the Code", for short) has been preferred by the appellant-State of Gujarat, being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 31.01.1994, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mehsana, in Sessions Case No.93/1990, whereby the respondent-original accused has been acquitted of the offence under Section -302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ("the IPC", for short).

(2.) The case of the prosecution is that on 28.02.1990 or thereabout, the respondent, Dhusaram Moraji Rana, Buckle No.100, who at the relevant point of time was serving as Horse-mounted Police Constable and was on duty at village Mesar, committed the murder of Karnaji Amraji (the deceased) in front of the Panchayat office of Mesar village, by firing a bullet from a 303 Rifle with the intention of killing him, thereby committing the offence under Section -302 of the IPC. The FIR was registered by PW-1, Amraji Dungarji Thakor, father of the deceased, stating that on 28.02.1990 when he was at home, one Sindhi Noorbhai Allarakha, a resident of village Mesar, came to him on a tractor and informed him that his elder son Karnaji had received a gun-shot wound by the rifle of a Horse-mounted Police Constable and had died. When he reached Mesar village, the first informant was told by his daughter that on the road between Khodana and Mesar, a Horse-mounted Police Constable had fired upon the deceased and killed him. The first informant went to the Vagdod Police Station and got his complaint registered. Investigation commenced and statements of witnesses were recorded. The Panchnamas of the scene of offence and physical verification of the respondent were drawn up and he was arrested. The 303 rifle was recovered at the behest of the respondent. As sufficient material was available on record, the charge-sheet was filed in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Patan. As the case was triable by a Court of Sessions, the learned Magistrate committed it to the Sessions Court. The charge was framed against the respondent at Exhibit-11. It was read over and explained to him. The respondent denied the charge and claimed to be tried. Accordingly, the case was put to trial.

(3.) In support of its case, the prosecution examined eight witnesses and produced documentary evidence. After appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence the Trial Court arrived at the conclusion that the prosecution had failed to adduce sufficient evidence in support of the charge against the respondent. It, therefore, rendered the judgment and order of acquittal which is under challenge in the present appeal.