Back
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
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 | |
