(1.) BY filing Criminal Appeal No. 722 of 2000 the appellant - State has challenged the Judgment and order dated 30. 5. 2000 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gandhidham at Kutch in Sessions Case No. 301 of 1999 acquitting the respondent - accused from the commission of offence under Section 302, 509 I. P. Code; by filing Criminal Appeal No. 723 of 2000 the appellant - State has challenged the Judgment and Order dated 30. 5. 2000 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gandhidham at Kutch in Sessions Case No. 301 of 1999 giving benefit of Section 4 and 6 of Probation of Offenders Act to the respondent - accused; by filing Criminal Revision Application No. 290 of 2000 the original complainant has prayed for quashing and setting aside the Judgment and order dated 30. 5. 2000 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gandhidham, in Sessions Case No. 301 of 1999.
(2.) THE brief facts of the prosecution case are as under:
(3.) HEARD learned APP Mr. Kodekar on behalf of appellant - State. It was contended by learned APP that the judgment and order of the learned trial Judge is against the provisions of law; the learned Judge has not properly considered the evidence led by the prosecution and looking to the provisions of law itself it is established that the prosecution has proved the ingredients of the commission of offence by leading evidence against the present respondent - accused. Learned APP has also taken this court through the oral as well as the entire documentary evidence. Learned APP has contended that it is a fact that the accused has inflicted a blow on the deceased and due to that blow the deceased died and, therefore, the learned Judge has erred in not believing the case of prosecution and acquitting the accused from the offence punishable under Section 302 I. P. Code. He, therefore, contended that the learned trial Judge has also committed a grave error in giving benefit to the accused under the provision of Probation of Offenders Act.