The judgment emphasizes the principles regarding the powers of the Appellate Court in dealing with appeals against acquittals, including the double presumption in favor of the accused and the requirement for two reasonable conclusions to disturb the findings of acquittal.

JUDGMENT :

A.Y. KOGJE, J.

1. The present appeal preferred by the appellant-State is against the judgment and order dated 31.08.1994 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bhavnagar recording acquittal of 13 accused persons, who were charged for the offence under Section 302, 147, 148, 149, 323, 324 and 325 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act in Sessions Case No. 121 of 1993.

2. The State has preferred an appeal against all the 13 accused persons acquitted, however, by order dated 01.05.1996, this Court admitted the appeal only qua respondent nos. 1, 2. 5, 6 and 7, whereas remaining respondents-accused viz. accused no. 3, 4, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13, the appeal came to be dismissed.

3. It is reported that pending the appeal, the respondent nos. 5 and 7 have expired and therefore, qua these two accused i.e. accused no. 5-Panchabhai Jivabhai Aalgotar and accused no. 7-Natha Jivabhai Aalgotar, the appeal stands abated. Therefore, effectively, the present appeal is against the accused no. 1-Haribhai Ratnabhai Aalgotar, accused no. 2-Bhopabhai Ratnabhai Aalgotar and accused no. 6-Rajabhai Jivabhai Aalgotar.

4. It was the case of prosecution that on account of alleged illicit relationship between the Panchabhai (accused no. 5) and one Maniben, who was the relative of the original complainant-Sondabhai Jesingbhai, who had objected to such relationship, the assault was carried out and in the assault, it is alleged that all the accused persons were armed with weapons like axe, dhariya, pipes/sticks and in the assault, they caused injuries to the deceased-Sarabhai Jesingbhai, which resulted into death.

5. The respondents were accordingly charge-sheeted and tried for the aforesaid offences, however, by the impugned judgment and order, they were acquitted.

6. Learned APP has argued that it is a case of homicidal death where by examining the medical officers, the prosecution was able to establish the cause of death, attributable injuries sustained by the deceased during the assault and that the injuries caused to the deceased were possible by the weapons.

6.1 It is submitted that it is a case of eye-witnesses whose presence at the scene of offence cannot be doubted nor can their evidence given by the witnesses be doubted and from the version of these witnesses, the role attributed to each of the accused is coming out very clearly, and therefore, on the basis of such evidence, the Sessions Court ought to have convicted the accused.

6.2 Learned APP has placed reliance upon the evidence of those witnesses which according to the prosecution were present at the scene of offence and had also sustained injuries, and therefore, their evidence is required to be believed. She has relied upon the evidence of witness-Sondabhai Jesingbhai, who was examined at Exh.37 on behalf of prosecution. She has also relied upon the evidence of Bhalabhai Vihabhai, who was examined at Exh.47 on behalf of prosecution. She has drawn attention of this Court to the scientific evidence to submit that even the report of the F.S.L. supported the case of the prosecution inasmuch as the blood stains were found on the weapons, which were recovered during the course of investigation.

6.3 It is submitted that an error is committed by the Trial Court in relying upon the minor contradictions, as such contradictions would not affect the case of prosecution.

7. As against this, learned advocate for the respondent-saccused has submitted that the prosecution has in fact failed to make out the case and has even failed to establish accurately the place of incident.

7.1 It is submitted that the prosecution witnesses themselves have indicated two separate places where the incident has taken place.

7.2 It is submitted that the prosecution has failed to establish the motive, as in the charge framed, the motive is indicated about an alleged illicit relationship, whereas the deposition of witness Eye-witness Bhalabhai Vihabhai has given the motive about the previous altercation bet