The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for reliable evidence in criminal cases, especially in appeals against acquittal.

JUDGMENT :

A.Y. KOGJE, J.

1. This Appeal, by the State, is preferred against the acquittal, recorded by the judgment and order dated 11.9.1998 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sabarkantha at Himmatnagar in Sessions Case No. 21 of 1998.

2. By the aforesaid judgment, all the accused, who were charged with the offence under Sections 147, 148, 149, 504, 451, 302, 323, 120B of the Indian Penal Code and Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act, have been acquitted.

3. When the matter is taken up it is reported that Accused No. 2-Natubhai @ Narsibhai Nemaji, Accused No. 4-Nemaji Harjibhai Ninama, Accused No. 7-Bachubhai Nemaji Ninama and Accused No. 10-Rupsibhai Saluji Ninama have expired pending the Appeal. Hence, the Appeal qua all the aforesaid Accused persons would stand abated.

4. Learned APP Ms. Divyangna Jhala submitted that the Sessions Court has committed an error in not taking into consideration the evidence of the eyewitnesses. Though all the eyewitnesses have given the narration in the manner and method in which the incident took place assaulting the deceased.

5. Learned APP submitted that the medical evidence especially the PM Note would indicate that the cause of death was the injuries received in the incident by the deceased and the witness examined in this connection PW-2 Dr. Urvashi Pravinchandra at Exh.20, who performed the PM has also opined that the injuries sustained by the deceased would be caused by the hard and blunt substance, and therefore, is matching with the articles, which were recovered during the course of investigation and attributed to the respondent accused. Therefore the State was able to establish the fact of homicidal death.

6. Learned APP submitted that evidence of the complainant Niruben Virjibhai who was the eye witness, her presence at the place of offence is quite natural as she was the wife of the deceased and the place at which the incident took place, is adjacent to their house. The Court has considered the minor contradictions in not accepting the version of this witness.

7. Similarly, the version of the another witness Mukeshbhai Virjibhai, who is the son of the deceased, was also an eyewitness, and therefore, his version should also have been considered by giving it sufficient weightage, as, even from the cross-examination, nothing is coming out, which would damage the case, which he had placed in the evidence-in-chief. It is submitted that only by creating doubt on her is the interview at Himmatnagar, the presence of this witness at the place of offence cannot be doubted especially when the incident took place just adjacent to their house.

8. Learned APP has thereafter submitted that the reasoning given by the Sessions Court in not accepting the evidence of these eyewitnesses though the same version is corroborated by not only the medical evidence but also with the scientific evidence.

9. As against this learned Advocate for the Respondent Accused, at the outset, submitted that the entire case is a fabricated case and is arising out of a land dispute, more particularly on the dispute between the family of the deceased and the son from the first marriage of the deceased. It is submitted that even from the evidence of an independent witness like Doctor, it is coming out that the deceased was brought for the first time to his hospital by a police officer apparently related to the complainant side. Since then, only the entire investigation and, consequently, the prosecution was diverted in a wrong direction.

10. It is submitted that there was otherwise no motive that could be established as there was no dispute with regards to any land between the accused and the deceased. At the best, even from the case of prosecution, such dispute would have been between the son of the deceased from his first wife and the family of the deceased. In any case a false case sought to be made out by involving the Accused No. 10 who is the elder brother of the deceased who had nothing to do with the entire incident