STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. MANAJI KALUJI THAKOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal arises out of a judgment and order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mehsana, in Sessions Case No. 119 of 1983 on 10th August, 1994. The present respondents were charged and tried for the offences under Sections 302 and 324 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Considering the evidence led by the prosecution, the learned Additional Sessions Judge came to a conclusion that the prosecution had failed to prove the charges against all the accused persons and, therefore, while holding them not guilty for the offences with which they were charged, acquitted them. The State has, therefore, challenged the judgment and order recording acquittal by the present appeal. Criminal Revision Application No. 460 of 1984 is preferred by the original complainant.

(2.) The incident occurred on 1st July, 1983, at about 13.30 hours, near Ravalvas at village Kharivavdi of Patan taluka of Mehsana district. At that time, one Ranaji Navalsinh and Laxmanji Jethaji of the same village were passing by the village street. Abutting to the said street was the house of accused No.2 Sardarji Shankerji Thakor. The three accused were sitting there and chit-chatting. They were equipped with Dharia. When Ranaji and Laxmanji were passing by, they (the accused persons)started abusing them (Ranaji and Laxmanji). The motive, as per the prosecution case, for doing this was that, earlier, in an incident, son of accused No. 1-Manaji was murdered and the accused persons felt that Ranaji Navalsinh and his associates were responsible for the murder. The accused persons asked Ranaji and Laxmanji that why they were passing through the street, when they had murderd the son of accused No. 1-Manaji. In reply, it was stated by Ranaji and Laxmanji that they had not murdered the son of Manaji and, therefore, they should not be abused. If at all the accused wished to abuse, they should abuse the persons who had murdered the son of Manaji. This, ultimately, resulted into an assault upon Ranaji. The three accused were equipped with Dharias and they assaulted Ranaji. The blows were given on head and other parts of the body. Laxmanji intervened and he was also assailed upon and inuries were caused to him. In the incident, shouts were raised and, therefore , people from around rushed to the spot which included Meruji Paragji and Jethaji Bhaiji, besides other persons. The accused persons fled away from the spot. As Ranaji was badly injured, the persons, who had gathered there, placed him into the tractor, along with the injured Laxmanji and took him to hospital at Patan. Because the injuries on Ranaji's person was serious, he was given primary treatment and was advised to be taken to Ahmedabad for further treatment whereas Laxmanji was given necessary treatment at Patan itself. Some persons left, for Ahmedabad for shifting Ranaji to the hospital at Ahmedabad. On the way to Ahmedabad, Ranaji succumbed to the injuries and, therefore, instead of taking him further, the persons, who were taking him to the hospital at Ahmedabad, brought him back to Patan where Dr. Chaudhary, who had initially treated Ranaji, performed the post-morterm. Initially, when Ranaji and Laxmanji were taken to patan hospital, police was informed by the doctor, police came and recorded the complaint of Laxmanji. Offence was registered and facts were investigated. After the investigation, police found that there was substance in the complaint and, therefore, the accused persons were chargesheeted. Since the offence was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the learned magistrate committed the matter to the Sessions Court, Mehsana, who in turn, transmitted the matter under Section 209 of Code of Criminal Procedure to the learned Additional Session Judge.

(3.) The learned Additional Sessions Judge charged the accused for the offence under Section 302 as well as Section 302 read with Section 34 or Section 114 and Section 324 or Section 324 read with Section 34 or Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code. All the accused persons pleaded not guilty and expressed their desire to face the trial.