The prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt; discrepancies in witness testimonies led to the appellant's acquittal.

JUDGMENT :

SANDEEP N. BHATT, J.

1.1 Feeling aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment and order of conviction dated 12.02.2016 passed by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Amreli in Sessions Case No.294 of 2001 for the offences punishable underSections 302, 307, 326, 397, 398, 147, 148, 224, 225, 324, 325, 332, 333 and 397 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 135 of the Gujarat Police Act, the appellant – the convict has preferred the present appeal under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“the Code” for short), whereby the appellant, along with other accused, has been convicted and sentenced to undergo maximum life imprisonment and also imposed fine.

1.2 It is noted that in all, ten persons were prosecuted for the said offences. During the pendency of the trial, accused No.5 – Vikrambhai Bhagubhai Patgir and accused No.9 – Harjit Pithabhai Helaiya expired and therefore, the trial proceeded against rest of the either accused. On the date of judgment, accused No.3 – Khodabhai Babubhai Khuman had also died. Hence, three different appeals came to be preferred i.e. Criminal Appeal No.609 of 2016 by five accused persons, Criminal Appeal No.739 of 2016 by one accused person and the present one – Criminal Appeal No.604 of 2016 by one accused person – present appellant.

1.3 Two appeals, except the present one, have been concluded and the accused persons are acquitted by the Coordinate Bench of this Court vide judgment and order dated 12.03.2021. The present appellant is the sole appellant in this appeal.

2. The complainant – Laxman Ramchandra Khamkar, Head Constable, Dindoshi Police Station, Mumbai, has given a complaint with regard to the incident in question before the Savarkundla Town Police Station, mainly for the offences under the Indian Penal Code.

3. In pursuance of the complaint lodged by the complainant, investigating agency recorded statements of the witnesses, collected relevant evidence and drawn various Panchnamas and other relevant evidence for the purpose of proving the offence. After having found material against the appellant – accused and other persons, charge-sheet came to be filed in the learned competent Court and in turn, committed the case to the Sessions Court concerned as provided under section 209 of the Code.

4. Upon committal of the case to the Sessions Court concerned, the learned Sessions Judge framed charge at Exh.61 against the appellant – accused, along with other persons, for the offences under Sections Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 307, 332, 324, 325, 326, 224, 225, 397 and 398 of the Indian Penal Code. The appellant - accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. In order to bring home charge, the prosecution has examined some witnesses and also produced various documentary evidence before the learned trial Court, described in Paras 4 and 5 of the impugned judgment and order, which are as under :