STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. HENRY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an Appeal filed by the State challenging the acquittal of the respondents/accused as per the judgment of the trial Court dated 26th November, 1992 in Sessions Case No. 65/90 on the file of Sessions Judge, Panaji. We have heard the learned Public Prosecutor in support of the Appeal and the learned counsel for the respondents. It may be noted that the 5th accused could not be served in this Appeal and hence in the Appeal we are only concerned with Appeal as against respondent Nos. 1 to 4 and Appeal against respondent No. 5 has been separated. The respondents were charged with offences punishable under Sections 143, 148, 302 and 427 r/w Section 149 I. P. C.

(2.) THE prosecution case is that on 8-4-1990, the deceased Querino and one Gurudas had gone to see a movie at Samrat theatre. It appears that P. W. 6 Michael Gonsalves had also gone to the said cinema. According to the prosecution, when the cinema was running, there was some commotion and disturbance which resulted in the accused chasing the deceased Querino. There it appears Querino ran towards the market and near Kismet Lodge and accused is said to have assaulted him by using weapons like iron rods, stones, etc. As a result of the assault, Querino sustained injuries and was lying in a pool of blood Then it appears the injured was removed to the Hospital by 4. 30 p. m. and ultimately he succumbed to the injuries by about 5. 00 P. M. It appears one Gurudas went to the Hospital and saw the deceaseds body and gave the F. I. R on the basis of which the police registered the case and started the investigation. In the course of investigation many witnesses including two eye witnesses came to be examined. The accused were also arrested during investigation. After investigation was complete, charge-sheet has been filed alleging that the accused committed the offences mentioned above.

(3.) THE defence of the accused was one of total denial. After trial the learned Sessions Judge held that the prosecution case is doubtful and the case against the accused is not proved and, therefore, acquitted all the accused. Being aggrieved by the judgment of the trial Court, the State has come with this Appeal.