STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. VRUJLAL BHAGWANBHAI PATEL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present appeal has been filed by the State of Gujarat against the judgment and order dated 26.5.1986 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rajkot at Gondal in Sessions Case No.44 of 1985, acquitting the present respondents - original accused for the offence punishable under Section 451, 302 read with Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code.

(2.) PATEL Bachubhai Madhabhai, complainant, lodged an FIR on 6.5.1985 stating inter alia that on earlier day, while he was in his field, his uncle's son Vaju Bhagwan (present accused), came to the fields on horse and asked him to untie his plough and asked him to vacate the land. Upon saying so, he came there alongwth another person whose oxen was borrowed by the complainant and the said person was directed to take possession of those animals and thereafter, the complainant untied his plough from those oxen and returned animals to the owner thereof. Thereafter, he came back to the village and reported the incident to one Kaba Patel and Vera Bhikha Hirpara that they assumed to persuade to accused. Thereafter, the complainant again went to the field and at 4 O'clock, once over again, accused came with axe and ordered the complainant to vacate the field or else he would kill him. The complainant came back to home and at late night, the accused came to his house. While he was sleeping in osari alongwith his daughter, the accused gave a stick blow. However, the said blow landed on his daughter and she died on spot. On this facts and others, FIR came to be lodged. After investigation, the police filed chargesheet. Thereafter, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions. The learned Sessions Judge framed the charge. The accused did not plead guilty, therefore, he was put to the trial. After considering the evidence, the learned Judge was pleased to acquit the respondent accused. Being aggrieved by the same, the State has filed this appeal.

(3.) THE learned Additional Public Prosecutor contended that though the incident had occurred at night time, the night was two days earlier of full moon day and light was enough to identify the accused. Moreover, the house of of the complainant and the house of the accused are very near to each other and they are related to each other and, therefore, there was no question of not identifying the accused person even at the late night. Immediately, just before wielding the stick blow, the complainant was awaken and, therefore, there was no question of not identifying the accused person at midnight. Even the wife of the complainant also supported the version, she was sleeping inside the room near osari, she came out immediately and deposed to have seen the accused running. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor further contended that there was previous animosity and the accused was very influential person in the town and he is relative of the complainant in whose possession the field belonging to the accused was there at the relevant point of time. In this set of circumstances, prior dispute between the complainant and the accused is sufficient to indicate motive behind the crime. The learned APP further contended that the learned Sessions Judge erroneously and unnecessarily pondered around minor and trifle contradiction, like seizure of gani bag containing blood stain is considered and the said evidence having not found convincing, acquitted the accused. Moreover, the learned Judge has also erroneously not believed the evidence of the complainant and his wife and acquitted the respondent -accused.