STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. BHARWAD BATUK RAGHAV

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is preferred against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 16.01.1995 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhavnagar, camp : Mahuva, in Sessions Case No. 24 of 1988 acquitting the respondents of offences under Section 302 & 114 of of Indian Penal Code and under Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act.

(2.) In a nutshell, the case of the prosecution is about an assault made by the respondents on complainant Prabhashankar Lakshmishankar of Talaja, who upon receiving injury initially succumbed to and died after six days while undergoing medical treatment at Sir.T Hospital, Bhavnagar after initial medical examination by Medical Officer of Community Health Center, Talaja, Dr.Goswami, PW-1. The cause of the motive behind the crime had genesis in one of the complaint lodged by the deceased against the respondents for unlawful grazing of animals in agricultural land belonging to the complainant and keeping grudge over the same on 18.08.1987 at around 17:15 hours, the respondents attacked the complainant / deceased with axe and sticks and inflicted multiple injuries on body of the injured. At the time of scuffle, PW-9 and PW-10 Shri Girijashankar Pandya and Shri Ganeshbhai Shivshankarbhai intervened and prevented further assault by holding weapons like axe. It is further the case of the prosecution that daughter of the deceased Hansaben Prabhashankar, PW-11, also was present and had witnessed the crime. The complaint, Exh.41, was lodged on 18.08.2007 by injured Prabhashankar Lakshmishankar and specifically mentioned about the manner in which an assault was made and injuries were inflicted upon him by one Bharwad Batuk Raghav and stick blows by other accused whom he could not name. Likewise, PW-9, 10 and 11 also narrated the incidence of being of being witnessed and present there.

(3.) Learned trial Judge upon extensive consideration of testimonies of above witnesses, including eye witnesses and medical officers found contradictions and discrepancies of major in nature and held that prosecution failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt resulting into acquittal of the accused.