The court emphasized the principle that an order of acquittal should only be reversed if it is clearly unreasonable and there are compelling and substantial reasons to do so.

JUDGMENT :

A.S. SUPEHIA, J.

1. The present appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 27.04.1994 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Amreli acquitting the accused, who were charged with the offence under Sections 148, 307 read with Sections 149, 326 read with Sections 149, 506(2) read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).

2. The State has presented this appeal challenging such acquittal. The appeal has abated so far as the accused nos.2 and 7 are concerned, as they have passed away.

3. The case of the prosecution, as per the charge at Exh.1, is that on 07.05.1989 at around 19 hours, the accused, who were eight in numbers having armed, (accused no.1 with axe, accused no.2 with spade, accused nos.3, 4 and 5 with sticks, accused no.6 with shovel, accused no.7 with iron pipe and accused no.8 with shovel), had assaulted the son of the complainant - Pravinsinh Laxmanbhai (PW-1). The trial Court, after examination of the documentary as well as oral evidence, has acquitted the aforesaid accused.

4. At the outset, learned Senior Advocates appearing for the respective parties have submitted that all of them have settled the dispute.

5. Learned advocate Mr.Hardik A. Dave appearing for the injured witness (PW-1) has tendered the affidavit dated 05.07.2023 and has submitted that he has no dispute between any of the accused and the present respondents and his family are in fact altogether living along with the family of the accused persons and they are having good terms. It is further submitted that Laxmansinh Zala, who is the complainant, has passed away on 28.05.2015. The affidavit dated 05.07.2023 is ordered to be taken on record. Registry shall accept vakaltnama of learned advocate Mr.Hardik A. Dave as and when it is filed.

6. At the outset, learned APP Mr.Kanva Antani, has submitted that the trial Court has misdirected itself in appreciating the evidence, which has surfaced on record. While inviting the attention of this Court to the deposition of PW-1, who is the injured witness, he has submitted that the witness has categorically named all the accused and each of the role attributed to them in assaulting him. It is submitted that as per the deposition of PW-1 and the complaint given by his father reveal that all the accused had gathered on the aforesaid day and have come in various vehicles and threatened him that they would today kill him and accordingly, all of them assaulted the son of the first informant, who was seriously injured. In support of his submissions, he has placed reliance on the medical certificate at Exh.28 and has submitted that the said medical certificate reveals that there were various injuries found on the body of PW-1 and he was admitted in the hospital on 08.05.1989 and was discharged on 19.05.1989.

7. Learned APP Mr.Antani has submitted that the trial Court should have appreciated the evidence of PW-1 as well as the evidence of Dr.Kiritkumar Mohanbhai, (PW-12), who had initially treated the injured witness at Kodinar Hospital. He has further referred to the deposition of Dr.Rajesh Acharatlal Domadiya (PW-10), who has treated the injured on 08.05.1989 at Mithabai Lohana Hospital, Veraval and has described the injuries, which were present on PW-1. It is submitted that the aforesaid evidence, if read closely, would in fact reveal that the incident had occurred on 07.05.1989 and PW-1 was mercilessly assaulted by the accused. He has further referred to the deposition of the first informant (PW-7), who is the father of the injured witness (PW-1), and has submitted that his deposition would reveal that there was an enmity between the accused and his son and they had threatened that the accused would murder him. It is, thus, submitted that the trial Court should not have acquitted the accused in view of the evidence, which has surfaced and the same would reveal the complicity of all the accused in the offence. Hence, it is urged that even if the accused and the complainant have settled