IMPORTANT POINT
The appellate court cannot overturn an acquittal unless the trial court's decision is perverse or fundamentally flawed, emphasizing the presumption of innocence and the burden of proof on the prosecution.

JUDGMENT :

(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SAMIR J. DAVE)

1. This Appeal is filed under Section 378(1)(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the judgment and order dated 29.11.2003 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sabarkantha in Sessions Case No.97 of 2000. By the impugned judgment and order, the respondents-original accused were acquitted of the offence under Section 302, 504, 114 of Indian Penal Code.

2. The facts of the prosecution case in brief are as under:

2.1 The complainant, who is the brother of the deceased, filed complaint against the present opponents declaring that the brother of the complainant deceased Sudhirbhai married at Ubhran village, and the name of his wife was Rekhaben and after marriage they both were residing separately as per insistence of wife of deceased brother of the complainant and thereafter, for some reasons, wife of his deceased brother had gone to her parental home and later on, his deceased brother had gone to take back her wife at Modasa and took his wife at Medhasan to the house of brother in law of his deceased brother namely Ishvarbhai but this Ishvarbhai had sent back wife of his deceased brother to Ubharan means her parental home and because of that, there was a grievance between deceased brother of the complainant namely Sudhirbhai and Ishvarbhai. On the fateful incident dated 5.2.2000, the deceased Sudhirbhai and Subhashbhai were talking, at that time, the opponent No. 1 Ishwarbhai & opponent no.2 Chandubhai were abusing and saying that the deceased was making false allegations. The deceased Sudhirbhai came out from house and requested not to abuse. The accused No. 1 came with dhariya, the accused No. 2 & 3 came with sticks and assaulted the deceased Sudhirbhai. The accused No.1 gave dhariya blow on the head of the deceased. The accused No. 2 & 3 gave stick blows and deceased fell down. The deceased was taken to CHC Medhasan Hospital and from there, he was shifted to Civil Hospital Ahmedabad where he succumbed to injury on 6.2.2000.

2.2 Thereafter, the complainant registered a complaint against the present accused persons with Modasa Rural Police Station. The complaint was registered and investigation was conducted, Panchnama was drawn, statements of the witnesses were recorded and upon completion of the investigation as sufficient evidence to link the accused with crime was revealed, the accused persons were charged-sheeted for the offence punishable under Sections 302, 504 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code.

2.3 Thereafter, as the case was exclusively triable by the Sessions Court the same was committed to the learned Sessions Court, Modasa under Section 209 of Cr.P.C. The case was numbered as Sessions Case No.97 of 2000. The trial was initiated against the accused persons-respondents herein.

2.4 To prove the guilt against the accused persons, the prosecution has examined 9 witnesses mentioned in the impugned order. Similarly, in order to support the case of the prosecution, the prosecution has produced 15 documents mentioned in the aforesaid judgment.

2.5 At the end of trial, after recording the statement of the accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C and hearing arguments on behalf of prosecution and the defence, the learned Additional Sessions Judge Sabarkantha camp at Modasa acquitted the accused-respondents of all the charges leveled against him by judgment and order dated 29.11.2003.

2.6 Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment and order passed by the Sessions Court, the appellant-State has preferred the present appeal.

3. Ms. Krina Calla, learned APP submitted that the judgment and order of the Sessions Judge is against the provisions of law. That, leaned Sessions Judge ought to have appreciated the evidence of eye witness Rakeshbhai Shivabhai Bhoi(Ex.16), who has corroborated the prosecution version in examination in chief as well as in his cross examination. That, leaned Sessions Judge ought to have appreciated that incident was taken place on 5.2.