STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. PRADEEP AMARSINH @ AMUBHAI PARMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 31st May, 2006 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.6, Junagadh, in Sessions Case No.77 of 2004 whereby present respondents-original accused were acquitted of the charges levelled against them.

(2.) The case of the prosecution in brief is that a complaint was filed by the complainant Ashwinbhai Babubhai alleging inter alia that on 28th July, 2004 at about 21.45 hours, accused persons in collusion with each other formed an unlawful assembly and committed murder of his brother by inflicting various blows with knife and iron rod on the body of the deceased. It was alleged that accused No.2 Pankaj Popat and accused No.1-Pradip were armed with knife. The deceased died as a result of grievous injuries sustained by him. The complaint was registered as C.R.No.I-146 of 2004 before Keshod Police Station for the offences punishable under section 302 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as "IPC" for short) along with section 135 of Bombay Police Act. The investigating officer thereafter carried out investigation and upon completion of investigation, a charge sheet came to be filed against the accused persons. <FRM>JUDGEMENT_107_LAWS(GJH)1_2017_1.html</FRM> <FRM>JUDGEMENT_107_LAWS(GJH)1_2017_2.html</FRM>

(3.) Leaned Additional Public Prosecutor, Mr.L.R.Poojari, appearing for the State, has vehemently contended that there is a serious error committed by the learned trial Judge in passing the judgment and order of acquittal. Taking this Court through the evidence of Dr. Janakkumar Odhavji Madhak, who has been examined as P.W.No.1 at Exh.14 and who noted down the injuries sustained by the deceased as well as the evidence of Dr.Mohanbhai Karamshibhai Thummar, who has been examined as P.W.No.2 at Exh.20 and who has performed post mortem on the dead body of the deceased, Mr. Pujari has contended that the injuries sustained by the deceased have been proved through the evidence of these medical witnesses. He has further contended that the cause of death as opined by the doctor is as a result of haemorrhagic shock due to vital organ injuries sustained by the deceased. Drawing the attention of the Court towards the evidence of complainant, Ashwinbhai Babubhai Chudasma, who is brother of the deceased and who has been examined as P.W.No.11 at Exh.59, he has contended that the complaint has been duly proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. Taking the Court through the evidence of eye witnesses namely, P.W.No.12- Jitendra Arsibhai Chudasma at Exh.61 and P.W.No.13-Manoj Dayabhai Chudasma at Exh.62, who have seen the accused inflicting the injuries on the deceased, he has contended that injuries inflicted by the accused on the deceased have been proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. He has further contended that motive in the commission of offence has also been established by the prosecution through the evidence of Reenaben Mukeshbhai, P.W.No.14, who is daughter of the deceased and who has been examined at Exh.63. By referring to several other evidences appearing on record, he has contended that as the case against the accused has been proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt, the findings arrived by the learned trial court are unjust and improper and, therefore, he has requested to allow the present appeal by quashing and setting aside the impugned judgment and order. In support of his contentions, he has relied on the following decisions of Hon'ble Apex Court: