Back
2016 Supreme(Guj) 959
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
Anant S. Dave and B.N. Karia, JJ.
The State of Gujarat – Appellant
Vs.
Laxibhai Kakadbhai Varli and Ors. – Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 205 of 2006
Decided On : 21-06-2016
For the Appellant : Rutvij Oza, Additional Public Prosecutor.
For the Respondent:Divyesh A. Joshi and Rushabh R. Shah, Advocates.
The judgment emphasizes the importance of consistent and reliable evidence in criminal cases, highlighting the need for a strong and coherent prosecution case to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Headnote:
Indian Penal Code - Acquittal - Section 143, 147, 148, 332, 342, 395 - Arms Act, Section 25(1)(A)(C)
Fact of the Case:
The prosecution alleged that the accused assaulted the police escorting party and forest personnel during an operation, resulting in injuries and theft of a revolver. The trial court acquitted the accused, leading to the state's appeal.
Finding of the Court:
The court found major discrepancies and contradictions in the evidence, including the description of the incident and the firing of the revolver. It noted several lacunae in the prosecution's case and upheld the trial court's acquittal.
Issues: Discrepancies in evidence, lacunae in the prosecution's case, and the validity of the trial court's acquittal.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the major discrepancies and contradictions in the evidence, as well as the presence of lacunae in the prosecution's case, leading to the affirmation of the trial court's acquittal.
Final Decision: The appeal filed by the state under Section 378(1)(3) of Cr.P.C. was rejected, and the trial court's acquittal of the accused was upheld.
Anant S. Dave, J.
1. The present appeal is preferred by the appellant-State, against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 18.05.2005, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Valsad, in Sessions Case No. 16/2003, for the offences punishable under Section 143, 147, 148, 332, 342, 395 of the Indian Penal code and under Section 25(1)(A)(C) of the Arms Act.
2. The case of the prosecution is that, the complainant D.N. Rao was In-charge as P.S.I. of Kaprada Police Station from 21.05.1997. On 23.05.1997, at 17:00 hours Range Forest Officer Shri Arjunbhai Chaudhary and Beat Guard Pankajbhai Vasantji Rathod came to the police station and gave a written application for providing protection. Pursuant to such complaint police escort was provided for Burla village. It is the prosecution case that the Tempo No. GJ-1-TT-6896 was containing 'Kher' wood. The said wood was removed by the employees of the Forest Department. It was not possible to remove the tempo. The tempo was to be seized. Necessary entry was made in the station diary and at 17:15 hours along with the employees of the Forest Department and Police Jamadar Khusalbhai Mangalbhai and Kantibhai Noane they left for Burla village in the Government jeep and reached at 17:40 hours. The tempo was lying there. They supervised the tempo, the wheel of the tempo, diesel tank, lights, seats were taken away. The axel was broken, at that time the officers went to the residence of the opponent accused No. 1 for further investigation. He was not available at his residence. Inquiry was made from Mohanji Kakadbhai. At that time, during this process the opponent accused came with deadly weapon and were abusing they came with the common intention to assault the complainant and their raiding party. The shoulder badge of the complainant was snatched away. The revolver was also snatched away by the opponent accused No. 1. At that time, other persons also gathered there. The complainant was dragged by shirt. His revolver was thrown towards Rambhai who was Ex-Police. Rambhai took that revolver and fired towards the complainant. The said firing was made from the Government revolver, other four rounds were also fired in the air. Thus the scuffle took place. After firing from the revolver of the complainant the revolver was returned. Shoulder belt was returned in broken condition. Five rounds were fired from the revolver.
3. Upon filing of the complaint, investigation was carried out and the accused were arrested and charge-sheet was submitted in the Court of learned Magistrate. However, as the case was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the same was committed to Sessions Court and registered as Session Case No. 16 of 2006, for the offence punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 332, 342, 395, 307 of Indian Penal Code read with Section 25(1) of the Arms Act. The accused pleaded 'not guilty' and claimed to be tried.
4. During the trial, the prosecution has examined the following witnesses:-
S. No. Name of the witness Exhibit Beat No.
1. Lalmiyan Shaikhali Shaikh 13
2. Seeraaj Allarakhhu Shaikh 16
3. Dilipkumar Natwarlal Rao 19
4. Arjunbhai Anchhibhai Chaudhary 20
5. Pankajbhai Vasantji Thakore 22
6. Kantibhai Keshurbhai Patel 28
7. Dr. Dhanjibhai Naranbhai Patel 33
8. Gajanand Krishnadin Bindre 37
5. The prosecution has also produced and relied upon the following documentary evidences:-
S. No. Particulars of the document Exhibit Beat No.
1. Panchnama of the place of offence 14
2. Panchnama of muddamal recovery 15
3. Medical Certificate of Arjunbhai 34
4. Medical Certificate of Pankajbhai 35
5. Original Complaint 38
6. FSL Report 39
7. FSL Report 40
6. At the end of the trial, the Court below recorded further statements of the accused persons under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. and thereafter, passed the impugned judgment and order acquitting the accused-respondents. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment of acquittal of the accused, the State has approached this Court by way of
