The prosecution must prove the intention or knowledge of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, and the absence of substantial evidence can lead to acquittal.

JUDGMENT :

SANDEEP N. BHATT, J.

1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and order of acquittal dated 30.11.1994 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Amreli in Sessions Case No.27 of 1990 for the offences under sections 307, 147, 148 & 149 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 135 of Bombay Police Act, the applicant – State of Gujarat has preferred this appeal as provided under section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“the Code” for short) inter alia challenging the judgment and order of acquittal in favour of the respondents accused.

2. The case of the prosecution is that, on 30.11.1989, injured Bhimjibhai was going to give Rs.3,000/- to Himmatbhai Naranbhai and the complainant – Ashokbhai Bhimjibhai was also going for factory. When the complainant - Ashok Bhimji reached to the factory, he came to know from the workers that the accused were beating Bhimjibhai. Therefore, the complainant rushed towards there. He has seen that the accused were armed with stick, pipe and spade and beating Bhimjibhai. Due to that, Bhimjibhai received injuries. Thereafter, the accused had run away from the scene of offence. As the injured was unconscious, he was shifted to the hospital. The dispute is for the land. Thereafter, the complainant lodged the complaint with regard to the incident before the Amreli Rural Police Station, which was registered as M. Case No.21 of 1989 for the offences under sections 307, 147, 148 & 149 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 135 of Bombay Police Act

3. In pursuance of the complaint lodged by the complainant, investigating agency recorded statements of the witnesses, collected relevant evidence in form of medical evidence and drawn various Panchnamas and other relevant evidence for the purpose of proving the offence. After having found material against the respondent accused, charge-sheet came to be filed in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Amreli. As said Court lacks jurisdiction to try the offence, it committed the case to the Sessions Judge, Amreli as provided under section 209 of the Code.

4. Upon committal of the case to the Sessions Court, Amreli, learned Sessions Judge framed charge at Exh.1 against the respondents- accused for the aforesaid offence. The respondents - accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. In order to bring home charge, the prosecution has examined 11 witnesses and also produced various documentary evidence before the learned trial Court, more particularly described in para 3 of the impugned judgment and order.

6. On conclusion of evidence on the part of the prosecution, the trial Court put various incriminating circumstances appearing in the evidence to the respondent accused so as to obtain his explanation/answer as provided u/s 313 of the Code. In the further statement, the respondents - accused denied all incriminating circumstances appearing against him as false and further stated that he is innocent and false case has been filed against him. After hearing both the sides and after analysis of evidence adduced by the prosecution, the learned trial Judge acquitted the respondent accused of the offences, for which he was tried, as the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt.

7. We have heard learned APP Ms. Shah appearing for the applicant State and have minutely examined the documentary evidence provided to us by learned APP during the course of hearing. Ms. Shah, learned APP has argued that the trial Court has committed error in acquitting the accused and also relied on the judgment in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh versus Naresh reported in 2011(4) SCC 324 in support her contention that the injured witness should be believed.

8. We have gone through the proceedings of the present appeal and record of the trial Court, where it is found that respondent No.2 – Kalabhai Devrajbhai Patel has expired on 26.11.2004 and respondent No.3 – Nagjibhai Devrajbhai Thumar has expired on 29.01.2015 and therefor