JUDGMENT :

SANDEEP N. BHATT, J.

1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and order of acquittal dated 30.06.1994 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Navsari in Sessions Case No.26 of 1991 for the offences under Sections 302, 323 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, 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, Durlabbhai Bhagabhai and others - the accused had bitten one Naginbhai on 12.12.1990 as he has intervened in the dispute between Durlabhbhai Bhagabhai and Chhaganbhai Bhagabhai. On 14.12.1990, the accused had gone to the house of said Naginbhai and used abusive language to his wife – Shardaben. The deceased – Gambhirbhai was a neighbour and therefore, he stopped the accused and told them not to use such language. The accused were provoked and as they were armed with sticks, gave stick blows to the deceased – Gambhirbhai. Due to that, Gambhirbhai received serious injuries on head and other parts of the body and ultimately, he succumbed to the injuries. Thereafter, the complainant – Shantaben, wife of Gambhirbhai lodged the complaint with regard to the incident before the Chikhli Police Station, which was registered as I-C.R. No. 201 of 1990, for the offences under Sections 302, 323 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

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 respondents accused, charge-sheet came to be filed in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Chikhli. As said Court lacks jurisdiction to try the offence, it committed the case to the Sessions Judge, Navsari as provided under section 209 of the Code.

4. Upon committal of the case to the Sessions Court, Navsari, the 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 14 witnesses and also produced various documentary evidence before the learned trial Court, as described in 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 Mr. Umang Oza, learned advocate for the respondents. We have minutely examined the documentary evidence provided to us by learned APP during the course of hearing.

8. We have gone through the proceedings of the present appeal and record of the trial Court, where it is found that respondent No.3 – Balubhai Maganbhai Patel has expired on 12.04.2021 and therefore, the present appeal is abated qua respondent No.3. It is noted that the present appeal is admitted by this Court vide order dated 10.01.1995.

9.1 There was a land dispute between two real brothers i.e. Durlabhbhai Bhagabhai and Chhaganbhai Bhagabhai, since long. One Naginbhai Ramabhai – a citizen of the village had intervened in the s