NARVATBHAI JASINGBHAI BARIA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present Criminal Appeal under section 374 of the Cr.P.C., 1973 is filed by the appellant - accused against the judgment and order, dated 4.10.2000, passed by the learned Special and Additional Sessions Judge, Panchmahals at Godhara in Sessions Case No.38 of 1997 (Atrocity).

(2.) The case of the prosecution is that on 11.5.1997 at about 1.00 p.m., the complainant and elder son Sartan and daughter Radhaben were at the house of elder brother Hursingh. At that time, the complainant as well as mother-in-law Mangudiben and elder sister-in-law Dadamben as well as younger sister-in-law Shakriben were talking near the tree situated at their house. At that point of time, as per the case of the prosecution, son of the complainant, Sartan and other children were playing and on account of some sudden quarrel between the children who were playing, the accused No.1 - Narvat, who was having bow and arrow with him, gave a blow with said weapon, as a result of this, Sartan fell down. Thereafter, immediately the complainant rushed down to the spot, took out the bow and arrow. However, son of the complainant - Sartan sustained serious injuries in the abdomen and there was a bleeding. It is further the case of the prosecution that after giving some preliminary treatment, the complainant gave the news to the Sarpanch of the village, Govindbhai and at that time, accused No.1 - Narvat ran away from the spot. On account of this injuries sustained by Sartan, he was taken to Godhara Government Hospital where he was admitted and at that time, complainant's husband and Sarpanch of the village went to the Godhara Taluka Police Station and gave the complaint for the offence punishable under Sections 326 and 114 of the IPC along with the offence under Section 3(1) (10) of the Atrocity Act and the said complaint was registered as I-CR No.101 of 1998.

(3.) Mr.B.Y. Mankad, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant - accused, has submitted that a false case is made out against the appellant and with respect to similar assertion, accused No.2 has been acquitted. So far as the evidence is concerned, according to Mr.Mankad, learned advocate, the medical evidence is supporting the ocular version by virtue of which an attempt is made to prove the case beyond the reasonable doubt. Learned advocate has further contended that there is no past history of any vengeance and the incident that has occurred, it might be an accidental act on the part of the appellant, for which an order of conviction could have been passed. Learned advocate has further contended that on the contrary, Parvatiben, who is the complainant, herself has become hostile and she has chosen to support the case of the prosecution and, therefore, there was hardly any other material to corroborate the case of the prosecution.