STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. BIPINBHAI GOPALBHAI SOLANKI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant State has filed the present criminal appeal under Section 378 of the Cr.P.C. against the judgment and order, dated 7.4.2006, passed in Sessions Case No.5 of 2003, by the learned Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court No.1, Valsad, whereby, the trial court has been pleased to acquit the respondents - accused from the charges for which he has been tried.

(2.) The facts leading to the rise of present criminal appeal are that a complaint came to be registered by one Rasikkumar Mohanlal Patel regarding incident which took place on 22.8.2002. It has been alleged in the complaint that respondents accused attacked the deceased Ranaji with spade and iron rod etc. and done away Ranaji who succumbed to the injuries caused at the behest of respondents accused. It is the case of prosecution that on 22.8.2002 prior to about 3 months, a quarrel took place with deceased Ranaji Vikramsinh Rathod with the respondents accused in connection with one atrocity complaint filed. Keeping that in mind, as per the case of prosecution, these respondents accused armed with weapons attacked the deceased Ranaji wherein, after dragging the deceased accused No.1 gave a spade blow, whereas accused No.2 gave a blow with iron rod, accused No.3 gave 'Parai' blow and accused No.4 gave stick blow and instigated others to finish the deceased Ranaji.

(3.) Mr.L.R.Poojari, learned APP for the appellant State has vehemently contended that while passing the judgment and order, a serious error is committed by the trial court and there also appears to be a clear erroneous approach in evaluating the evidence on record. Learned APP has submitted that though there are eye witnesses to the incident, who are supporting the case of prosecution, still their version is not examined in its proper perspective and thereby, a material irregularity is reflecting from the judgment and order of granting benefit of doubt. Mr.Poojari, learned APP has further submitted the benefit of doubt in the present background of fact ought not to have been granted, more particularly when there are eye witnesses to the incident in question. It has also been pointed out that sufficient material is available on record, adequate medical evidence is also corroborating the case of prosecution and the material which have been led by the prosecution has specifically connected each of the accused persons with specific assertion about the role being played by each one. Learned APP has submitted that the injuries are co-related to the ocular evidence led by the prosecution and there appears to be no reflection in ocular evidence and documentary evidence in getting and establishing the link with the respondents accused and therefore, when entire chain is getting completed, the reasons which are assigned by the trial court are not justified.