STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. DALSUKHBHAI AMARSING T PATEL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. A. J. Desai, learned APP for the appellant-State. The appeal is admitted. This is an appeal preferred under Sec. 378[1][3] of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ["code" for short] against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 8. 5. 2009 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bharuch in Sessions Case No. 36 of 2008. The learned Judge acquitted the respondent for the offence punishable under Secs. 504 and 307 of Indian Penal Code ["ipc" for short].

(2.) AS per the prosecution case, complainant Amarsingbhai Patel gave a complaint, wherein he narrated the assault committed by the respondent during the quarrel which ensued between the complainant and respondent. On the basis of the complaint given by him, investigation was set in motion. Investigating Officer visited the place of incident and prepared panchnama of the place of offence and recorded statements of witnesses from the neighbourhood. Injured was taken to the hospital for giving immediate treatment. At the conclusion of the investigation, respondent was charge-sheeted and produced before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, who in turn, committed the case to the Sessions Court under Sec. 209 of the Code as the case was exclusively triable by the Sessions Court. The learned Judge considered the evidence on the record of the case and held that the prosecution has not established involvement of the respondent in the commission of offence punishable under Secs. 504 and 307 of IPC in conclusive manner and, therefore, acquitted the respondent. The learned Judge held that the injured who had sustained injuries had turned hostile and not supported the prosecution story and, therefore, acquitted the respondent.

(3.) WE have heard the learned APP Mr. A. J. Desai at length and in great detail. We have perused reasoning given by the learned Judge while acquitting the respondent for the offence under Secs. 504 and 307 of IPC. We have carefully perused the depositions adduced by the complainant Amarsingbhai Patel PW 1 vide exh. 13, Ranjitbhai Amarsing, PW 5 vide exh. 22, Arunbhai Kanubhai Patel PW 6 vide exh. 23 and Baldevsinh Ramsinh Parmar PW 7 vide exh. 36. These are the witnesses who had seen the incident. Ranjit Amarsing is the person who had sustained injuries in the incident. As per the deposition of PW 5 Ranjit Amarsing at exh. 22, he has not supported the prosecution story about the assault committed by the respondent. In his deposition, he has deposed that he sustained injuries because of the fall from Ota situated near his house. Thus, the prosecution story indicating involvement of the respondent in the commission of offence falls flat on the ground. Thus, when the injured has not supported the prosecution story, then, the respondent, in our considered view, is required to be acquitted. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the learned Judge has rightly acquitted the respondent for the offence punishable under Sections 504 and 307 of IPC.