JUDGMENT :

SANDEEP N. BHATT, J.

1. Feeling aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment and order of acquittal dated 19.12.1998 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural) in Sessions Case No.21 of 1994 for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code and Section 135(1) of the B.P. Act, the appellant – State of Gujarat has preferred this appeal as provided under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, “the Code”) inter alia challenging the judgment and order of acquittal in favour of the respondents – accused. The present appeal is abated qua respondent No.1 – Mr. Naranbhai Jitram Patel vide order dated 10.01.2017 passed by this Court.

2. Brief facts of the case are as under:

2.1 On 30.12.1992 at about 06:00 p.m., the deceased and the complainant returned to their home from shopping. While deceased was parking his scooter in his compound, one boy aged about 20 years suddenly came towards the deceased and there was scuffle between them. When the deceased shouted, he ran away. The deceased chased him and again there was scuffle between them. The said boy had given blow to the deceased at left side of underarm and at left abdomen and had run away from the place of incident. The deceased sat near his house. There was lot of bleeding. When the deceased was shouting, Kaushik Tribhovandas Patel, Hiteshbhai, Munno and Arjan Bharwad rushed there and shifted the deceased to the hospital. Ultimately, the deceased succumbed to the injuries. Therefore, the wife of the deceased viz., Pravinaben Mohanbhai has filed a complaint by indicating above facts.

2.2 In pursuance of the complaint lodged by the complainant, the investigating agency recorded the statements of the witnesses, collected the relevant documentary evidence and other relevant evidences for the purpose of proving the offence. After having material evidence against the respondents-accused, charge-sheet came to be filed before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ahmedabad (Rural). As the said Court lacks jurisdiction to try the offence, it committed the case to the Sessions Court, Ahmedabad (Rural) as provided under Section 209 of the Code. Thereafter, in Sessions Case No.21 of 1994 is tried by the learned Session Court, Ahmedabad (Rural).

2.3 Upon committal of the case to the Session Court, the learned Session Judge framed the charge at Exh.5 against the respondents-accused for the aforesaid offence. The respondents-accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

2.4 In order to bring home charge, the prosecution has examined 13 witnesses and also produced various documentary evidence before the trial Court, more particularly described in para 5 and 6 of the impugned judgment.

2.5 On conclusion of evidence on the part of the prosecution, the trial Court put various incriminating circumstances appearing in the evidence to the respondents-accused so as to obtain their explanation/answer as provided under Section 313 of the Code. In the further statement, the respondents accused denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against them as false and further stated that they are innocent and false case has been filed against them.

2.6 After hearing both the parties and after analysis of evidence adduced by the prosecution, the learned trial Judge acquitted the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 135(1) of the B.P. Act, by holding that the prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt.

3.1 We have heard learned advocate Ms. C.M. Shah, Additional Public Prosecutor for the appellant – State and learned advocate Mr. Nitin Amin for the respondent No.2. Further, respondent No.1 – Mr. Naranbhai Jitram Patel was expired, therefore, criminal appeal qua respondent No.1 stood abated as per the order passed on 10.01.2017. None appears for respondent No.3. We have minutely examined the oral as well as documentary evidence.