The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of properly examining evidence and addressing major contradictions in the prosecution's version.

ANANT S. DAVE, J.

This appeal is filed under Section 378(1)(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short, “the Code, 1973”) against the judgment and order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Godhra dated 29.11.2005 in Sessions Case No. 239 of 1998 acquitting the respondents - accused of the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 307, 325 and 326 of the Indian Penal Code, on the ground that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.

2. The facts of the prosecution case are that a complaint was registered by Maheshbhai Mansukhbha residing at Shaniyala village being CR No. I-162 of 1998 at Bariya Police Station on 21.07.1998 at 2:30 hours alleging that since one year he was plying rickshaw bearing registration No. GJ 17 U 1253 between Piplod and Bandibar road and residing at his uncle's place at Pratap Koli, resident of Paniya. It is further stated that on the previous day of incident at 5:30 p.m one Sakilbhai Pijara got in his rickshaw at the cross roads of village Saniyala and when the rickshaw reached flour mill of Mana Savaji, Subhash Chaku - accused No. 1 was standing on the road with cycle and he intentionally pushed his cycle on rickshaw of the complainant. The complainant therefore stopped his rickshaw and accused No. 1 caught hold of collar of his shirt and slapped on his back and due to fear the complainant ran away from the scene and reached his home. The complainant informed about the incident to his grandfather - Parsinh Dhana and his father-Mansukhbhai and also mother - Hiriben and thereafter all of them left for the spot where the rickshaw was lying. At that time, accused No. 1 and other accused persons were standing there. Accused No. 1 was standing with iron pipe, accused No. 2 was having ‘dharia’ and accused No. 3 was having ‘dang’ and accused Nos. 4, 5 and 7 were having sticks in their hands. All of them came running towards them and accused No. 2 gave a ‘dharia’ blow on the back side of the complainant and accused No. 1 gave a blow of iron pipe on the knee of right leg of his father, accused No. 3 gave ‘dang’ blow on the right shoulder and accused No. 4 gave stick blow on back and shoulder. Accused No. 1 also gave a blow on mother of accused, Hiraben with iron pipe on her head and elbow of her right hand, accused No. 2 gave a ‘dharia’ blow on his grandfather Parsingh Dhana and accused Nos. 6 and 7 gave stick blows on his leg and accused No. 5 shot arrow from his bow on the complainant. However, he escaped the same and it did not hit him. After causing grievous injuries to the complainant and other witnesses all the accused ran away from the scene of evidence. Thereafter, complainant went home out of fear of the accused persons. His grandfather was seriously injured and he was lying on the road and due to the fear of the accused persons, immediate medical treatment was neither provided to him nor could they file complaint. The motive behind committing the murder of his grandfather was of the incident which took place six months prior to the said incident of his brother Arvindbhai teased Niruben, daughter of accused No. 1 residing in their faliya and keeping the grudge his family members caused injury to them and also caused death of his grandfather.

3. That upon completion of the investigation and committal of the case to the Sessions Court under Section 209 of the Code, 1973, the charge was framed against the accused under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, and the charge was explained and read over to the accused, which was not accepted by the accused, and accordingly, the accused was tried in Sessions Case No. 239 of 1998.

4. Ms. Moxa Thakkar, learned APP has taken us through the evidence of injured eye witnesses and Medical Officer, who examined them and other panch and police witnesses and submitted that PW-1 o