Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(Guj) 231

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
Vipul M. Pancholi, Hemant M. Prachchhak, JJ.
State Of Gujarat – Appellant
Versus
Harijan Devsi Nathu & others – Respondent
R/Criminal Appeal No. 20 of 1999
Decided On : 08-02-2023

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr Chintan Dave APP
For the Respondent: Mr Pratik B Barot

The principle of double presumption in favor of the accused and the requirement to prove charges beyond reasonable doubt.

Headnote:
Acquittal - Offences under IPC and Bombay Police Act - Sections 302, 307, 147, 148, 149 etc - [SUMMARY]
Fact of the Case:

The complainant filed a complaint alleging that the accused persons attacked him and others with a knife and stick, causing serious injuries. The prosecution presented oral and documentary evidence to prove the charges.
Finding of the Court:

The trial court acquitted the accused, finding discrepancies in the evidence and suppression of the genesis of the incident by the prosecution. The court noted exaggeration and omission by witnesses and lack of corroboration with medical evidence.
Issues: Discrepancies in evidence, suppression of genesis of the incident, lack of corroboration with medical evidence.
Ratio Decidendi: The court found that the prosecution failed to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt, and there were discrepancies and suppression of material facts. The acquittal was based on the principle of double presumption in favor of the accused.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the acquittal of the accused was confirmed.

JUDGMENT :

Hemant M. Prachchhak, J.

1. Feeling aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment and order of acquittal dated 25.09.1998 passed by the learned Additional Session Judge, Jamnagar in Sessions Case No.144 of 1995, whereby the accused – respondents herein came to be acquitted from the charge of the offences punishable under Sections 302, 307, 147, 148, 149 etc the Indian Penal Code (for short “the IPC”) and under Section 135 of Bombay Police Act, the appellant – State of Gujarat has preferred present criminal appeal u/s 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short “the Code”).

2. Briefly stated, the complainant – Kanjibhai Devabhai Sadiya registered complaint with City “B” Division Police Station, Jamnagar on 03.09.1995 being C.R.No.I-28/1995 inter-alia stating that on 02.09.1995 the complainant went to his field at about 2.30 p.m. and one Devshi Nathu had tied bullocks near the field of the complainant and since the complainant stated not to tie the bullocks near his filed, thereupon, the accused stated that do whatever he can do. On 03.05.1995 at about 6.00 p.m., the accused persons came to the house of the complainant and used filthy language and the quarrel took place between them. It is alleged that during this fight, accused gave knife and stick blow to the complainant and the complainant, his father and one Pujabhai sustained serious injuries injuries.

3. Pursuant to the FIR lodged by the complainant, investigating agency recorded statements of the prosecution witnesses, drawn panchanama and collected relevant expert evidence for the purpose of proving the offence. After having found sufficient material against the respondents herein and for the aforesaid offence, charge-sheet came to be filed in the Court of learned JMFC, Jam Jodhpur. Since the case was exclusively triable by Sessions Court, learned JMFC, Jam Jodhpur committed the case to the Sessions Court as provided under section 209 of the Code.

4. Upon committal of the case to the Sessions Court learned Sessions Judge framed charge at Exhibit 3 on 16.05.1995 against the accused including the respondents herein for the aforesaid offence. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. In order to bring home charge, the prosecution has examined 14 prosecution witnesses and also produced documentary evidence before the learned trial Court, which is as under :-

Oral evidence:

Sr.No	Name of witnesses	Exhibit
1	Doctor H. G. Shah	15
2	Kanji Deva	20
3	Deva Mepa	22
4	Haja Amara	23
5	Deva Bhima	24
6	Amara Rana	36
7	Bhikha Vora	38
8	Devji Mulaji	39
9	Mohan Tapur Lathiya	40
10	Sahdevsinh Prabhatsinh	43
11	S. L. Pandya	48
12	Doctor H. M. Mangal	51
13	B. T. Zala	54
14	Dharmendrasinh Anopsinh Jadeja	58

Documentary Evidence:

Sr.No	Documents	Exhibit
1	Injury certificate of Deva Bhima	16
2	Injury certificate of Kana Deva	17
3	Treatment papers of Ghela Chana	18
4	M.L.C. of Puja Deva	19
5	Complaint	21
6	Inquest panchnama	25
7	Death certificate	26
8	Arrest panchnama	27
9	Yadi wrote to the Community Health Centre	28
10	Yadi for collecting blood sample of Ghela	29
11	Details for sending muddamal to the FSL	30
12	Authority certificate	31
13	Letter of FSL	32
14	Letter of FSL	33
15	Analysis report of FSL	34
16	Serological report	35
17	Seizure panchnama of muddamal	36
18	Yadi for making map of the scene of offence	41
19	Map of the scene of offence	42
20	Yadi wrote for hospital head constable	44
21	Copy of MLC register	45
22	Yadi wrote lodged complaint	46
23	Letter for performing postmortem of the dead body	52
24	Postmortem note	53
25	Copy of sta