STATE OF DIU Vs. SUBHASH UKAD PATEL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By the present appeal, the State of Diu has challenged the judgment and order dated 20.01.1997 delivered in R.C.C. No.83 of 1993 by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Daman acquitting the respondent accused from the charge of commission of offence under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code. The said prosecution has emerged out of the charge sheet submitted by Daman Police Station as a result of investigation of Crime No.92 of 1993 registered with the said police station upon complaint lodged by PW1 Navin regarding incident of assault which had occurred on 12.06.1993 at 4.00 p.m. at Chheda Falia in the house of PW1 in which the respondent had allegedly assaulted and caused injuries to PW1 by means of knife. After completion of the investigation of the said crime, PW 7 ASI Solanki has charge sheeted the respondent for commission of offence under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code.

(2.) According to the prosecution, on 12.06.1993 at about 16.00 hours when PW1 was in his house and his mother Smt. Lali Bhikhu Patel was discussing hotly with their neighbour Smt. Gomtiben Patel and her son Shankar Ukad Patel regarding black magic. PW1 was sleeping inside the house and after hearing loud voice he came out of his house and then said Gomatiben and her son giving abuses in filthy language rushed at his mother for assaulting. PW1 intervened for rescuing his mother. At that time, respondent son of Gomati came from the rear side of PW 1 and assaulted him twice with the knife, due to which PW 1 sustained blood injury on his back. PW1 called his aunt PW3 Ramilaben by shouting that respondent has assaulted him with knife. PW 3 came at the place so also the father and mother of PW1. PW1 was taken to the out post Moti Daman by calling rickshaw. From the same place police sent him for medical treatment to primary health centre Moti Daman. From the said place he was further referred to Marward Hospital for further treatment. He was admitted and treated at the same place. By narrating such a matters PW1 has lodged the complaint, upon which crime was registered.

(3.) Respondent pleaded not guilty to charge for commission of such offence framed. Prosecution examined in all seven witnesses at the trial namely injured victim PW1 Navin B. Patel, PW2 Ashokbhai Amrat intervener in dispute and PW3 Ramilaben aunt of PW1, PW 4 Bhagwan Panchas for seizure weapon, PW5 Dr. Kaushik Rathod, who had examined PW1 at Primary Wealth Centre, PW6 Dr. Jog who had also treated PW 1 at Marwad Government Hospital, Investigating Officer PW7, A.S.I. Shri Solanki. The defence of the respondent is that of total denial. It was also his say that there was a dispute going on between his mother and mother of PW1 and so also with PW1. According to him as all of them had beaten his mother, he had been to the place of PW1 and at that time PW1, his mother and father had pelted stone on his auto rickshaw due to which glass of auto rickshaw was broken. In the process of saving mother, the PW 1 hit on said glass and sustained the injury and by taking advantage of the said fact that PW 1 falsely implicated him in this case.