STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. NATHABHAI JASABHAI KOLI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The state has preferred present appeal under Section 378 of Code of Criminal Procedure feeling aggrieved by the order of acquittal passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.7, Rajkot, in Sessions Case No.100 of 2005 on 21.06.2006.

(2.) The case in brief of the prosecution is that the complainant Jivrajbhai Jasabhai is having five brothers and he being the eldest one in the family. It is the case of the complainant that before about 20 years from the date of incident 30 Bighas of agricultural land was partitioned amongst the respondents - accused nos.1, 3 and 4, who are brothers of the complainant. But the said partition was not mutated in the revenue record and standing in the name of the mother. On account of this rift, on 16.11.2004, when the complainant and his son and the sister were sitting in their residence armed with deadly weapons, accused nos.1, 2 and 3 along with accused nos.4, 5 and 6 came to the spot and picked up quarrel with the complainant in respect of ownership of the land.

(3.) The learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Mr. L.R. Poojari appearing for the State has vehemently contended that the learned Judge has committed a serious error in passing the judgment and order and granting benefit of doubt. Mr. Poojari has contended specifically that with a view to prove the case against the respondents accused, the prosecution has made a serious attempt of giving cogent evidence and in that regard more than 20 witnesses have been examined and several documentary evidences have been led and according to Mr. Poojari the conjoint effect of such, has laid to the situation that prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable doubt and the learned Judge has failed to appreciate the said evidence, as a result of which such error committed by the learned Judge is required to be corrected. Mr. Poojari has contended that the testimony of witnesses have proved the presence of the respondents accused and the very fact that cross case is lodged with respect to the same incidence and the presence of the accused and the role played by them is unequivocally established on the record of the case which ought not to have been ignored.