JUDGMENT :

HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK, J.

1. The appellant – State of Gujarat has preferred the present appeal under Section 378 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 20.5.1996 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhavnagar (hereinafter be referred to as “the trial Court”) in Sessions Case No. 186 of 1995, whereby the respondents-original accused were acquitted from the charges levelled against them under Sections 302, 324, 326, 34 etc. of the Indian Penal Code and Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act.

2. It appears that during the pendency of present appeal, respondent No.3 - original accused No.3 -Ahir Malabhai Mulubhai has expired on 25.8.2019 and therefore, this Court passed order dated 29.4.2022, abating present appeal qua said respondent No.3- original accused No.3 - Ahir Malabhai Mulubhai.

3. Present appeal came to be admitted vide order dated 30.10.2006, which reads as under:-

"Leave granted. Appeal admitted. Bailable warrant in the sum of Rs.5000/- with one surety in the like amount to be issued against each of the respondent-accused. The trial Court is directed to prepare the paper book and forward the same to this Court on or before 31st August, 1997 and the matter to be placed thereafter on final hearing board immediately."

4. It is contended by the appellant that the respondents – accused were charged and tried by the trial Court in the said Sessions Case for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 324, 326, 34 etc. of the Indian Penal Code and Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act, wherein at the end of trial, by the impugned judgment and order dated 20.5.1996, the trial Court was pleased to acquit the respondents – accused. It is the contention of the appellant that the judgment and order of acquittal is against the law and evidence on the record of the case and the trial Court has not properly appreciated the evidence available on record. It is the further contention of the appellant that the trial Court has committed an error in not considering the evidence of the witnesses, who have supported the case of the prosecution and they have narrated the incident in detail about the role played by the accused-persons. It is also the contention of the appellant that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and, therefore, the respondents – accused ought to have been convicted for the offences with which they were charged. According to the appellant, the entire evidence has not been properly appreciated by the trial Court below and, therefore, the acquittal order is illegal. It is prayed by the appellant to set aside the impugned judgment and order of acquittal.

5. The facts in brief giving rise to the filing of present appeal are as under: 5.1 On 29.6.1995 at about 17.50 O'clock evening, in the sim of village Gundarana, when the complainant and his uncle namely Rajabhai Samantbhai (deceased) came out from the machinery room near farm, at that time, the accused - persons came there with weapons. Accused No. 1 had given blow of knife at back side of the deceased and accused No.3 had given two blows of sticks on the deceased. Due to this incident, the uncle of the complainant namely Rajabhai Samantbhai died and the complainant also received injuries on his forehead. Accused No.1 had given blow of knife and accused No.2 had given blow of Axe on the forehead of the complainant. 5.2 Thereafter, on 29.6.1995 complaint was given by the complainant - Kalubhai Visabhai Ahir, at Mahuva Police Station and the same has been registered at Mahuva Police Station as I-C.R. No.25 of 1995.

6. Pursuant to the aforesaid FIR, the police started investigation and prepared panchnama of the scene of offence, panchnama of the body of the injured, recovery panchnama, and seized muddamal articles. After completion of investigation, as the sufficient evidence was found, the pol