IMPORTANT POINT
The appellate court upheld the acquittal due to insufficient evidence, emphasizing the presumption of innocence and the prosecution's burden to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

JUDGMENT :

SAMIR J. DAVE, J.

1. This Appeal is filed under Section 378(1)(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the judgment and order dated 17.06.2023 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Surendranagar in Sessions Case No. 19 of 2019. By the impugned judgment and order, the respondent-original accused was acquitted of the offence under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code.

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

2.1 That complainant (deceased) viz. Rameshbhai @ Anilbhai Maganbhai Vaghela is residing at Joravarnagar, Surendranagar with his family. On 06.11.2018, the complainant went to toilet at the back of his house. At that time, accused person come near the complainant and said that why did you use filthy words regarding Chamar caste girls. Thereafter, the complainant replied to accused person that he had not said anything about girls of Chamar caste. Hence, the accused persons abused the complainant and thereafter, the accused have inflicted knife blows on the waist and right side shoulder of the complainant and ran away from the place of incident. Thereafter, complainant shifted to Gandhi Hospital, Surendranagar for primary treatment through 108 ambulance and thereafter, he was sifted to C.U. Shah Medical College and Hospital at Surendranagar for treatment. Thereafter for further treatment the complainant was shifted to Civil Hospital, Ahmedabad. Thereafter, the complainant registered a complaint against the present accused person with Joravar Police Station, which was registered as I-C.R. No. 98/2018, for the offence punishable under Sections 324, 504, 506(2), 427 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 135 of the Gujarat Police Act. 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 person was charged-sheeted for the aforesaid offence.

2.2 Thereafter, as the case was exclusively triable by the Sessions Court the same was committed to the learned Sessions, Surendranagar Court under Section 209 of Cr.P.C. The case was numbered as Sessions Case No. 19 of 2019. The trial was initiated against the respondent-accused.

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

2.4 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 Addional Sessions Judge acquitted the respondent of all the charges leveled against him by judgment and order dated 17.06.2023.

2.5 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; the Additional Sessions Judge has not properly considered the evidence led by the prosecution and looking to the provisions of law itself it is established that the prosecution has proved the whole ingredients of the evidence against the present respondent. Learned APP has also taken this Court through the oral as well as the entire documentary evidence. She submitted that PW-17 Dr. Bhiaraviben Dipakbhai Joshi, who was examined at Exh.50, who has conducted postmortem of the deceased. She has specifically mentioned that the case of death due to cardiorespiratory arrest due to abdominal injury and its complication. PW-26 Vajesinh Vashrambhai Rathod, who was examined at Exh.69 and PW-27 Jagdishchandra Rambhai Dangar, who was examined at Exh.75, have fully supported the case of the prosecution and the learned Judge has committed grave error in disbelieving and discarding the evi