STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. HIRA KARASHAN BORICHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 378 (1) (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ('Cr.P.C.', for short) against the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the learned Fast Track Court No.9, Rajkot in Sessions Case No.44 of 1992 dated 15.04.2006.

(2.) The case of the prosecution, which is emerging from the record, is that on 06.07.1991, the complainant viz Rameshbhai Parbatbhai, a prosecution witness No.6 has lodged the complaint before the Police Inspector (Incharge) of 'C' Division Police Station by projecting that he along with mother and deceased brother Navinbhai Parbatbhai were residing together and complainant Rameshbhai Parbatbhai was driving a rickshaw. His elder brother is residing in Gopalnagar-I and on 05.06.1991 at about 11:00 O'clock when the complainant Rameshbhai Parbatbhai has returned with his rickshaw at his house and after taking meal was sleeping, at around 01:30 hrs in night, one unknown person came to his house and informed the complainant that his brother Navla is lifted by some 2-3 persons, who came in rickshaw and as a result of this, complainant Rameshbhai Parbatbhai was informed that he may go at Nilkanth Cinema and then said unknown person went away. Complainant accordingly went to Nilkanth Cinema in his rickshaw where that unknown person was not available and at that place of Cinema, one Kishorebhai met the complainant and informed that his brother was lifted by two persons in rickshaw but it appears that the destination could not be noticed. Resultantly, complainant was searching his brother near Sorathiya Vaadi Chok but then Navinbhai @ Navla could not be traced out. It was also asserted in the complaint that on 23.06.1991, his brother Navla i.e. Navin had an altercation with Ahir Hira Karshan near Champaknagar Sheri where said Ahir was residing and with respect to that incident even complaint was also lodged by Hira Karsan and, as such, complainant apprehended that keeping that factor in mind, said Hira Karshan might have abducted his brother Navla in a rickshaw and thus complaint was registered before Police Inspector Mr.A.Y.Patel, Prosecution Witness No.34, who, in turn, lodged the complaint for the offences punishable under Sections 365, 367 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code and the FIR was registered as I.C.R.No.339 of 1991.

(3.) To meet with the stand taken by learned APP, Mr.Pratik Barot, learned advocate appearing for the respondents accused have vehemently contended that the prosecution has miserably failed to connect the respondent accused in commission of crime. On the contrary on account of some rivalry they have been wrongly roped into prosecution. In fact, the prosecution has miserably failed in discharging its primary obligation of establishing the case beyond reasonable doubt. There are enough circumstances available on record which establish that present respondents accused have been wrongly roped in.