STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. NARENDRA @ NATHA MANSUKHLAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant State of Gujarat has preferred the present appeal under Section 378 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 29.06.1995 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Rajkot in Sessions Case No. 310 of 1993.

(2.) The case of the prosecution is that the accused was tried by the learned Sessions Judge, Rajkot for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act on the allegation that on 22.05.1993 at about 8.00 a.m., the accused has killed one Dashrath Nanji Makwana by giving knife blows to him.

(3.) It is contended by the appellant that learned Sessions Judge has committed an error in acquitting the accused though there were ample direct and indirect evidence to connect the accused in the alleged offence. It is also contended that the learned Judge has discarded the evidence of the complainant Rameshbhai whose evidence is duly corroborated from the FIR which came to be lodged immediately after the incident. It is contended that there is evidence of the eye witness Triloksing Bhagwansing who is serving as security guard in railway platform at Rajkot at the relevant time, is not property appreciated and wrongly discarded by the learned Judge. According to the appellant, the learned Judge ought to have appreciated the fact that the eye witness Triloksing Bhagwansing has deposed in his deposition in most natural way and he is an independent eye witness, which has been duly supported from the medical evidence and other evidence on record. It is contended that the extra judicial confession made by the accused immediately after the incident ought to have been believed by the learned Judge below and circumstantial evidence also leads corroboration to the evidence of the eye witness Triloksing Bhagwansing. According to the appellant, the learned Judge below has given undue importance to the minor omissions and contradictions in the evidence of the prosecution witness and thereby erred in acquitting the accused. According to the appellant, the entire evidence has not been properly appreciated by the learned Judge below and, therefore, the acquittal order is illegal. It is prayed by the appellant to set aside the impugned judgment and order of acquittal.