JUDGMENT :

K.S. Jhaveri, J. :

The present appeal is filed by the appellant-State being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and order dated 30-8-1993 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gondal, Rajkot, in Sessions Case No.46 of 1992 whereby the respondents-original accused were acquitted of the charges levelled against them.

2. Short facts of the case are that a complaint was filed by the complainant Jadav Hamir Bharvad, residing at Sultanpur Village, Gondal Taluka, alleging inter alia that on 3-11-1991 at about 1.30 p.m., all the accused in collusion with each other with a common intention formed an unlawful assembly with deadly weapons and committed murder of Kumbha. It was alleged that accused No.1 gave blow with sword on the lower portion of the body of the deceased, accused No.4 slapped and showed revolver to the deceased and when the deceased tried to run away from the scene, accused No.4 gave blow with iron pipe and accused No.5 gave dharia blow and accused No.6 gave kohadi blow causing serious injuries to the deceased and the deceased succumbed to those injuries and thus, the accused have committed offences punishable under Sections 302, 147, 147, 148, 149, 506(2) of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as "IPC" for short), section 25(1-A) of Arms Act and 37(1) of Bombay Police Act. In pursuance of said complaint, investigation started and as there appeared prima facie case against the accused persons, a charge sheet was filed against them. Thereafter charge was framed against the accused. The charge was read over and explained to the accused. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed to be tried.

2.1 To prove the guilt against the accused, prosecution examined as many as 24 witnesses. The prosecution has also relied on several documentary evidence. After filing of closing pursis by the prosecution, further statements of accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. were recorded. On conclusion of trial and upon hearing the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties, respondents-accused were acquitted of the charges levelled against them, giving rise to this appeal.

3. Heard learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Ms.C.M.Shah for the appellant-State of Gujarat and learned advocate, Mr.Yogendra Thakore for respondents-accused.

4. Learned APP, Ms.Shah for the appellant took us through the evidence of eye witnesses and medical evidence and submitted that the learned trial Judge has not properly appreciated oral as well as documentary evidence produced on record and has erred in holding that the prosecution has failed to prove the charge against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. She submitted that though the prosecution has examined several witnesses supporting the case of the prosecution, the learned trial Judge has not properly appreciated their evidence and therefore, the finding recorded by the learned trial Judge that the prosecution has failed to prove the charge against the accused by leading legal, reliable and impeachable evidence is contrary to the evidence available on record. She further submitted that aforesaid injuries are sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused. She also further submitted that the learned Judge has not appreciated the seriousness of the offences wherein a person has lost his life at the hands of the accused. She further submitted that though almost all the witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution, the learned trial Judge has committed a grave error in disbelieving their evidence on the ground that they are relatives of the deceased and in acquitting the respondents-accused and therefore, it is requested that the appeal deserves to be allowed.

5. Learned advocate, Mr.Yogendra Thakore for the respondents-original accused, on the other hand, submitted that the trial court has rightly appreciated the evidence appearing on record and the reasons assigned for recording a finding of acquittal are reasonable and justifiable. According to him, t