STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. JAKIRHUSAIN SAMSUDDIN SHAIKH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY preferring this appeal under section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [for short 'the Code'] the appellant State of Gujarat has challenged the legality and validity of impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Dehgam [for short 'the learned Magistrate'] om 13/1/1997 in Criminal Case No. 1473 of 1994. The learned Magistrate was pleased to acquit respondent accused for the offence punishable under section 324 of the Indian Penal Code [IPC].

(2.) THE prosecution case, in nut -shell, is as under : -

(3.) ON behalf of the appellant State, learned APP Mr. Mengde submitted that the impugned judgment and order delivered by the learned Magistrate is contrary to law and facts on record. That considering the depositions of complainant Fajalbhai and the injured witness Yusufbhai, it becomes crystal clear that the accused had caused injuries to both these witnesses with the help of weapon sword and that the offence took place in a private premises which was chamber of Yusufbhai in the industry called 'Bharat Agro Industries'. That therefore, except two injured witnesses, there was no scope for availability of any independent witness. That in the impugned judgment, the learned Magistrate observed that prima -facie it can be said that the prosecution proved its case. That despite such observation, upon flimsy ground the learned Magistrate recorded the order of acquittal of the respondent accused. That as a matter of fact, the evidence adduced by both the injured witnesses is supported by the medical evidence in the form of deposition of Dr. Parikh and the injury certificates That there was no reason whatsoever to discard the testimonies of two injured witnesses. That learned Magistrate erred in holding that the act on the part of the injured witnesses to take treatment in private hospital of Dr. Parikh was suspicious; merely because they took treatment in private hospital that itself cannot be said to be any doubtful action on their part. That the reasoning assigned by the learned Magistrate in the impugned judgment are improper, perverse and unwarranted to the facts of the present case. Therefore, it is submitted that the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Magistrate be set aside and the respondent accused be convicted for the offences punishable under sections 326 and 324 of the IPC and under section 135 of the Bombay Police Act and be sentenced appropriately for the offences in accordance with law by allowing this appeal.