DEVSHIBHAI MOTIBHAI BHARWAD Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this revision, the revisionist has challenged the judgment and order of acquittal dated 28-1-2009 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge and Fast Track Court, Patan, in Sessions Case No. 45 of 2007 by which the learned Judge has acquitted the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 323, 337, 504, 506 (2) and 114 of IPC.

(2.) THE case in short is that a complaint was filed by Jabalben Motibhai Bharvad alleging that due to fight between his son Bhemabhai and Thakore, police was deployed in his Village. On 1-5-2007 at about 7. 00 hours when he was at his residence, Thakore Dharsiji Hemuji, Takore Hamirji Kamaji, Thakore Manji Motiji and Laghaji Kamaji came to his house and started talking in abusive language and told him to leave the Village. When he asked them not to use abusive words, they pelted stones on them which hit on Jabalben. When people of the Village gathered, they left the place by saying that her son Devsi Moti is saved at that time but he will be done to death the next time. Since they did not dare to go out of Village, she took treatment from Private hospital at Sami. Since the condition of injured became serious, Jabalben was shifted to Patan Civil Hospital where she was admitted as an indoor patient from where her complaint was taken. The said complaint was registered as Sami Police Station I. C. R. No. 72 of 2007 for the offence punishable under Secs. 323, 337, 504, 506 (2) and 114 of IPC. Since Jabalben died during treatment, offence under Sec. 302 of IPC was added and investigation proceeded in taht line. At the end of investigation, as there appeared to be prima facie case against the accused, charge sheet was submitted against the accused in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Sami. As the learned Magistrate has no jurisdiction to try the case, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions at Patan where it was numbered as Sessions Case No. 45 of 2007. The learned Judge framed charge against the accused. The charge was read over and explained to the accused. The accused denied all the charges and prayed for trial.

(3.) TO prove the charge against the accused, the prosecution examined 13 witnesses in all and also produced and relied on several documentary evidence numbering 17 namely, complaint Ex. 47, panchnama of body position of deceased Ex. 31, P. M. note Ex. 33, cause of death certificate Ex. 34, inquest panchnama Ex. 38, panchnama of recovery of muddamal Ex. 44, marnothar form Ex. 61, FSL report Ex. 62, report to add Sec. 302 IPC, etc. On submission of closing pursis by the learned APP, further statements of the accused were recorded under Sec. 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.