STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. RANCHODBHAI BHAGABHAI KOLI PATEL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present Criminal Appeal is filed by the State under Section 378(1) of Criminal Procedure Code feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied by the judgment and order passed by learned Sessions Judge, Valsad on 29.04.2006 in Sessions Case No.311 of 2002.

(2.) The case of the prosecution is that deceased Mangubhai Bhagabhai, real brother of respondent-accused no.1 and uncle of respondent- accused nos.2 and 3, was attacked by all these accused and giving stick blows on the head and various parts of the body and the said scuffle took place on account of fetching water from the water pump. The incident said to have occurred on 21.10.1999 at village Gorgam of Valsad Taluka. The incident has further narrated the circumstance that wife of the deceased Baviben also sustained serious injuries on account of the said attack executed by respondents-accused. This incident in question has been reported to Valsad Rural Police Station in the form of First Information Report being C.R. No.I- 227/1999, lodged by the son of the deceased Deepakbhai. The First Information Report came to be registered for the offences punishable under Sections 322, 325, 504 and 114 of Indian Penal Code as well as Section 135 of Bombay Police Act. During the course of investigation, the deceased Mangubhai Bhagabhai succumb to the injury and died on 26.10.1999. Resultantly the charge of Section 302 read with Section 114 of the I.P.C. came to be added. After investigation of the incident in question, the Investigating Officer has submitted the charge-sheet before the learned Magistrate, 1st Class, Valsad and since the case was triable by learned Sessions Judge in exercise of power under Section 209 of the Cr.P.C., the case was committed to the Sessions Court and it was registered as Sessions Case No.311 of 2002 in the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Valsad.

(3.) Learned APP, Mr. Poojari appearing on behalf of the State has contended specifically that the learned Judge has committed grave error in exercising the jurisdiction whereby on such a serious offence an order of acquittal came to be passed. Mr. Poojari has contended that the evidence which has been led by the prosecution have not been properly appreciated in its true perspective and upon erroneous inferences the order came to be passed in favour of the respondents-accused.