The appellate court must respect the presumption of innocence and the trial court's findings unless there is a clear error or misreading of evidence.

JUDGMENT :

MAULIK J. SHELAT, J.

1. The present Acquittal Appeal has been filed under Section 378(1)(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, challenging the judgment and order dated 18.09.2002 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Amreli (hereinafter referred to as “the Trial Court”) in Session Case No. 125 of 2000. The State is in appeal before us. By way of the impugned judgment and order, the accused have been acquitted of all the charges levelled against him under Sections 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 read with Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act.

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

2.1 It is the case of the prosecution that Hajibhai Roshanbhai Nada, the brother of the deceased Hamirbhai Roshanbhai, filed a complaint alleging that the accused kicked Hamirbhai's motorcycle, causing him to fall. The accused then stabbed Hamirbhai in the chest and beat him with a stick, resulting in his death. A child witness, Nathu, was present during the attack. The prosecution believes the motive stems from a family feud involving the marriages of Hamirbhai's daughter Shantu and the accused's niece Hawaban. The accused held a grudge against Hamirbhai, especially after the death of his brother Bhurabhai, Hawaban's father, as Hawaban was currently residing at her parents' home.

2.2 The First Information Report (FIR) was lodged with the Khamba Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 302 of the Indian Penal Code (“IPC” for short) and also under Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act, vide I-CR No. 63 of 2000.

2.3 The Investigating Officer recorded witness statements, prepared panchnamas, collected medical documents, and obtained the post-mortem report. Upon completion of the investigation and upon committal of the case to the Trial Court, learned Trial Court, after appreciating oral and documentary evidence on record, has found so many contradictions in the version of witnesses, who have been examined by the prosecution and the story enumerated by complainant as well as other supporting witnesses, are not found trust worthy. Thus, considering the evidence on record, the learned Trial Court, has acquitted all the accused from all the charges.

3. We have heard learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Mr. J.K. Shah at length, who has taken us through various oral evidence as well as documentary evidence, which are on record. We have independently examined and appreciated evidence of witnesses.

4. Learned Trial Judge, framed charges vide Exh.2 against the Respondents-Accused for the aforesaid offences. It appears that accused have not pleaded guilty and the prosecution has examined following 15 prosecution witnesses and also produced 16 documentary evidence, which are as under:

Oral Evidence

Documentary Evidences