STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. PATEL ASHWINKUMAR RANCHODBHAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE State has preferred instant Criminal Appeal under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, against the Judgment and Order delivered by Additional Sessions Judge, Mehsana ( Mr. A. N. Vakil), on 20th of November,2004, in Sessions Case No. 185 of 2004, whereby the present respondent, being accused of the said Sessions Case, came to be acquitted for the offences charged against him under Sections 302, 451 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act.

(2.) LEARNED APP Dipen A Desai for the State and learned Advocate Mr. F. B. Brahmbhatt for the respondent were heard in detail in respect of this Appeal.

(3.) AS per the prosecution case, deceased in the incident, happens to be uncle of accused respondent herein. Deceased and the accused families were residing in adjoining houses. On 15th of June, 2004, there was a rainfall, and on account of rainfall, the accused was digging a ditch to prevent flowing water and, therefore, the deceased Keshavlal, uncle of the accused, scolded the accused that why the accused was preparing a ditch. Some altercations took place at that time. Thereafter, at about 10' O clock in the night, on the same day, the family members of the deceased went to sleep and at about 3. 00 p. m. , accused came to the house of the deceased, giving abuses. Deceased Keshavlal awakened. Kiritkumar Keshavlal, complainant in this matter and son of the deceased, brother of the complainant and other son of the deceased also awakened. When they switched on the lights, they noticed that accused had encroached and trespassed in their house with an iron bar in his hands and complainant Kiritkumar accosted him, but even then, accused gave a blow by iron bar on the head of the deceased Keshavlal, who was sleeping on a cot. Due to commotion all the family members of the deceased were awakened and some scuffle ensued between the accused and other family members, but accused ran away and escaped from the spot. Thereafter, complainant Kiritkumar and his younger brother Prakash and uncle Sombhai brought deceased Keshavlal in jeep vehicle at village Vijapur before Dr. Subhashbhai. Doctor informed them that the injury was serious and, therefore, deceased was required to transfer to Lions Hospital at Mehsana in ambulance. So, complainant and his family members were taking deceased to Mehsana Hospital, the deceased died in transit. Therefore, the complainant Kiritkumar filed a complaint before Vijapur Police Station for the above said offences, being Crime Register No. 168 of 2004. The crime was investigated and charge sheet came to be filed against the accused. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions and made over to the Trial Court. The record reveals that charge was framed against the accused by the Trial Court vide Exhibit-3 on 30th of October, 2004 and accused pleaded not guilty. The record reveals that, therefore, the prosecution examined six witnesses and produced on record documents to prove its case. Prosecution examined Kiritkumar Keshavlal, complainant, vide Exhibit-9; Joitiben Keshavlal Patel, vide Exhibit-11; Prakashbhai Keshavlal Patel, vide Exhibit-12; Kailashben Kiritbhai Patel, vide Exhibit-13 and Ushaben Prakashkumar Patel, vide Exhibit-14. All these witnesses were eye witnesses and the family members of the deceased. All these witnesses happen to be related to the accused and the deceased. The only independent witness which the prosecution examined is PW-6, Exhibit-15, Dr. Pravinbhai Shankarbhai, who conducted the postmortem on the dead body of deceased and produced on record the postmortem note. However, all the witnesses i. e. P. W. 1 to P. W. 5 did not support the prosecution case and turned hostile. Therefore, the learned Trial Judge in his very brief judgment, came to the conclusion that though the death of the deceased Keshavlal was homicidal, but in para 10, in very few lines, came to the conclusion that, the accused was not linked to the crime on account of eye witnesses did not support the prosecution case. In para10 only within few lines, the whole trial came to be disposed of by learned Trial Judge.