State Of Gujarat vs Jakir @ Ayubbhai Umarbhai Makrani

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2022 Supreme(Guj) 880

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
S.H. Vora, Rajendra M. Sareen, JJ.
State Of Gujarat – Appellant
Versus
Jakir @ Ayubbhai Umarbhai Makrani – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 271 of 1999
Decided On : 16-09-2022

Advocates appeared:
V.S.Modi, C.M.Shah, Soeb R.Bhoharia, Valimohammed Pathan, Advocates

Headnote:
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 302 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Sections 313, 378 – Bombay Police Act, 1951 – Section 135 – Offence of murder – Criminal Appeal – Order of acquittal – Power to examine the accused – Fundamental Principle of Criminal Jurisprudence – Acquitting the respondent – Complainant –Criminal Appeal has been preferred by appellant - State of Gujarat under Section 378 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 against judgment and order passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, in Sessions Case acquitting respondent - original accused from charges levelled against him for offence punishable under sections 302 of Indian Penal Code and Section 135 of Bombay Police Act – Held, while dealing with judgment of acquittal, unless reasoning by learned trial Court is found to be perverse, acquittal cannot be upset – It is observed that High Court's interference in such appeal in somewhat circumscribed and if view taken by learned trial Court is possible on evidence, High Court should stay its hands and not interfere in matter in belief that if it had been trial Court, it might have taken a different view – Considering aforesaid facts and circumstances of case and law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court while considering scope of appeal under Section 378 of Code of Criminal Procedure, no case is made out to interfere with impugned judgment and order of acquittal – Dismissed.

JUDGMENT :

Rajendra M. Sareen, J.

1. Present Criminal Appeal has been preferred by the appellant - State of Gujarat under Section 378 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 against the judgment and order dated 05/07/1994 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Banaskantha at Palanpur in Sessions Case No.7 of 1998 acquitting the respondent - original accused from the charges levelled against him for the offence punishable under sections 302 of Indian Penal Code and Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act.

2. Facts of the case, in brief, are as under:-

The deceased Akbar Hussain Rangrej was engaged in the business of T. V. Repair and Cable dish connection. As per the FIR dated 25.04.1997 filed by Mehboobkhan Padiyar, brother - in - law of the deceased, one Jakir @ Ayub Umar Makrani came to the shop of the deceased at about 1 o'clock and asked the deceased to go with him to his house to repair his T.V. The deceased and the accused started to leave and at that time the complainant also decided to join the deceased. On the way complainant stopped for a moment to talk to his sister-in-law and quitcly follwed the deceased and the accused. He witnessed the accused giving stab wounds to the deceased from a little distance and hence upon seeing such incident, rushed to his rescue. Thereupon, the accused ran and the deceased collapsed on the ground, people immediately gathered. Thereafter, the complainant carried the body of the deceased and on way met Saffrunissa and both of them took the deceased to Civil Hospital. In the Civil Hospital, the deceased has given history to the doctor regarding stab wounds by Ayub Umar Makrani. Thereafter, immediately the FIR was registered. The accused is said to have presented himself to the police station and produced the knife used in commission of offence.

3. On the basis of the said complaint, investigation was started and after thorough investigation, as there was sufficient evidence against the respondent - accused, Chargesheet was filed before the trial Court and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions, which has been numbered as Sessions Case No.7 of 1998. Thereafter, Charge was framed against the accused for the offence punishable under sections 302 of Indian Penal Code and Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act. The accused pleaded not guilty to the Charges and claimed to be tried. The prosecution, therefore, laid evidence, oral as well as documentary. At the conclusion of the trial, the learned Sessions Judge was pleased to acquit the accused from the charges levelled against him. Hence, the appellant has preferred the present Criminal Appeal challenging the judgement and order of acquittal.

4. Heard Ms.C.M. Shah, learned APP for the appellant - State. Learned advocate Mr. S. R. Boharia appearing for the respondent - original accused is not present, though matter was called out. As the appeal is of the year 1999, the same is heard on merits and considering the record and proceedings, it is decided forthwith.

5. Ms.C.M. Shah, learned APP for the appellant State has vehemently argued that the judgment of the Sessions Court is quite erroneous on the facts as well as on law. The learned Sessions Judge has committed a grave error in not believing the deposition of the witnesses examined by the prosecution and evidence adduced by the prosecution. It is further submitted that the Sessions Judge has erred in acquitting the respondent - accused from the charges levelled against him. It is further argued that the FIR was lodged within one hour of the incident and the names of the witnesses were disclosed and the Court has held that the complainant has not clearly identified the accused. The Court has also not believed that the motive was clearly established. It is also submitted that the trial Court has not believed the discovery Panchnama and erred in holding that conduct of the accused in arriving at police station after committing crime is not natural. It is further submitted that the trial Cou