STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. PRAVINSINH RANUBHA GARASIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The judgment and order recorded by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhavnagar, in Sessions Case No. 121 of 1985 on 2nd March, 1991, recording acquittal of the accused person-respondent herein, who was charged under Sees. 337, 333 and 506(2) of IPC and Sec. 135 of Bombay Police Act, is the subject of challenge in this appeal.

(2.) The incident occurred on 25th June, 1985 at about 16.30 hours in the Police M.T. Garage of "C" Division Police, Bhavnagar. P.S.I. Bharatkumar Balkrishna Bhatt, who was serving in that section was inspecting a vehicle when the accused-respondent assaulted him with a knife. The accused is alleged to have given one knife blow on left hand, another knife blow on chest and the third blow while he was inflicting, the victim P.S.I. Bhatt raised his hand in defence which caused injury on the little finger of his left hand. The victim P.S.I. Bhatt, therefore, went to "C" Division for informing his superiors and lodging First Information Report. The injured was taken to the hospital and was given treatment. On the basis of the information received by the P.S.O, Investigating Officer was deputed, who recorded the information as given by th,e injured P.S.I. Bhatt. The offence was registered and investigated upon by the police. After collecting the evidence, a charge sheet was filed against the accused-respondent before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Bhavnagar. who committed the case to the Court of Sessions as the offences with which the accused was charged were triable only by the Court of Sessions. The learned Sessions Judge, Bhavnagar, in turm, transferred the matter to the Court of learned Additional Judge under Sec. 209 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge against him and expressed his desire to face the trial. After the evidence was recorded, the learned Additional Sessions Judge came to a conclusion that the evidence led by the prosecution was not beyond the shadow of doubt and he, therefore, acquitted the accused of the charges by the impugned judgment order. State of Gujarat has, therefore, preferred this appeal challenging the judgment and order.

(3.) Mr.A.J. Desai, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the appellant State has assailed the judgment and order on the ground that the learned trial Judge has not evaluated the evidence in its proper perspective. The deposition of eye-witnesses is wrongly not believe. The so called defects in the prosecution case arc not such as would adversely affect the prosecution case. The eye-witnesses and the injured both desposed to the guilt of the accused. The F.S.L. report indicates that the blood group found on the cloth of the victim and the accused is the same and, therefore, this corroboration besides the corroboration lent to the eye-witnesses by medical evidence could not have been ignored by the learned trial Judge. Mr. Desai, therefore, urged that the appeal may be allowed, the acquittal may be set aside and the accused be convicted for the offences that he is charged with.