The presumption of innocence and the requirement for clear evidence of guilt are central legal principles established in the judgment.

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 20/01/1995 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Junagadh in Sessions Case No.96 of 1992 acquitting the respondent Nos.1 to 4 – original accused Nos.1 to 4 from the offence punishable under sections 302, 34 and 506(2) of Indian Penal Code.

It is pertinent to note that the appeal against the respondent Nos.2 to 4 – original accused Nos.2 & 4 stood abated vide order dated 12/04/2022. Hence, the present appeal is proceeded against the respondent Nos.1 & 3 – original accused Nos.1 & 3.

2. The crux of the case of the prosecution is as under :-

Accused Nos.1 to 3 are sons of the accused No.4. Accused No.4 is the brother of the complainant Ramabhai. - Rama Mulu - brother of the accused No.4 and original complainant Hardas has died. There was dispute of partition of land amongst the three brothers because the Puja - son of the deceased Rama has not received any share in the land situated at Koyli Math and hence Puja Rama has filed case in the Court for obtaining his share, wherein he succeeded and therefore, original complainant Hardas was ready to give share to Puja Rama but the accused No.4 and his sons – accused Nos.1 to 3 were not ready and hence there was dispute.

On 17/05/1992 during the time between 3.00 p.m. and 3.30 p.m. in the sim of village Koyli all the accused in the field which was in possession of the accused No.4 with common intention to kill the deceased, caused injuries to the deceased – Ranmal Hardaswith spear and axe, on account of which the deceased succumbed to the injuries.

3. On the basis of the said complaint, investigation was started, statement of witnesses were recorded, inquest panchnama was carried out, panchnama of scene of offence was carried out, postmortem report was obtained and after through investigation, as there was sufficient evidence against the respondents – accused persons, Chargesheet was filed before the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class. As the offence committed by the accused persons was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions as per the provisions of Section 209 of Criminal Procedure Code, the learned Judge was pleased to commit the case to the Court of Sessions and the case was transferred and placed for trial in the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, which has been numbered as Sessions Case No.96 of 1992. Thereafter, Charge was framed against the accused for the offence punishable under sections 304-B, 498-A, 201 and 114 of Indian Penal Code. The accused persons pleaded not guilty to the Charges and claimed to be tried. The prosecution, therefore, laid evidence, oral as well as documentary. After the evidence was over, Further Statement of the respondents – accused were recorded under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and arguments were heard. At the conclusion of the trial, the learned Sessions Judge was pleased to acquit the accused for the charges levelled against them. Hence, the appellant - State of Gujarat has preferred the present Criminal Appeal challenging the judgement and order of acquittal.

As stated hereinabove, present appeal has been abated against the qua respondent Nos.2 and 4 and hence the present appeal is required to be considered qua respondent Nos.1 and 3 – original accused Nos.1 and 3.

4. Heard Ms.C.M. Shah, learned APP for the State and Mr.Param Buch, learned advocate for the surviving respondent No.1 and 3.

5. Mr.C.M. Shah, learned APP has vehemently submitted that the Sessions Court has committed a grave error in not believing the deposition of the witnesses examined by the prosecution. She has further submitted that the Sessions Court has erred in acquitting the respondent Nos.1 and 3 – accused Nos.1 and 3 from the charges levelled against him. She has further argued that the prosecution has proved that the respondent