STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. KANUBHAI PRATAPRAI THAKKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY way of the present appeal under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ("the Code" for short), the appellant -State has questioned the legality and validity of the impugned judgement and order of acquittal dated 28th January, 1998 passed in Criminal Case No. 634 of 1993 by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Court No.20, Ahmedabad.

(2.) THE facts of the case briefly summarised are that both the complainant and the accused are public servants serving in the Post Office. Having some quarrel, for which the accused is alleged to have given a fist blow to the complainant, as a result of which, the complainant sustained injuries and therefore, a complaint was filed, being C.R. No. I -123 of 1993, for the alleged offences under Sections 332, 323 and 427 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ("IPC" for short). The learned Metropolitan Magistrate recorded the plea and the accused claimed to be tried for the offence for which the charge was framed at Exh.3. The learned Metropolitan Magistrate proceeded with the trial and passed the impugned judgement and order, recording acquittal of the accused, which has been assailed by the appellant -State in the present appeal, inter alia, on the following grounds:

(3.) MR . K. P. Rawal, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the appellant -State, has referred to the material evidence on record. He referred to the deposition of the complainant Jivanbhai Narshibhai Purani (PW -1) at Exh.5, and submitted that he has supported the complaint at Exh.6 with regard to the occurrence of the incident. Mr. Rawal has strenuously submitted that the complainant has specifically stated that when the accused was asked not to sit on the handle of the chair and was asked by him to sit on the chair, he got excited and gave a fist blow to the complainant and that is how, the incident has occurred. As a result thereof, the complainant had some bleeding from his mouth and his "kurta" was torn. The complainant has, therefore, specifically stated that after the incident, he had gone to the police station and lodged the complaint and also had taken the treatment at the hospital. Mr. Rawal, therefore, submitted that the observation made by the trial Court that the complaint ought to have been filed immediately and truth would have come out, is contrary to the record.