The appellate court emphasized that minor discrepancies in eyewitness testimony do not undermine overall reliability, and the prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

JUDGMENT :

A.S. SUPEHIA, J.

(1) The present appeal has been filed by the appellant - State under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as “the Code”) against the judgment and order of acquittal passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Gondal (hereinafter referred to as “the Trial Court”) in Sessions Case No.200 of 1995 on 15.09.1997, whereby, the Trial Court has acquitted the respondents - accused for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 504 and 449 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (“the IPC” for short).The respondents are hereinafter referred to as “the accused” as they stood in the rank and file in the original case for the sake of convenience / clarity and brevity.

(2) At the outset, learned APP has referred to the report dated 06.02.2025 of Police Inspector, Dhoraji Police Station, Rajkot (Rural), Dist. Rajkot and has submitted that as per the aforesaid report, the accused No.1 is suffering from paralysis and is the bedridden since last 8 years.

BRIEF FACTS:

(3) The case of the prosecution as per the Charge Exh.1, is that on 16.08.1995, at 11 O’clock at night, all the accused formed an unlawful assembly, and rushed to the house of the complainant, (PW-1, the wife of the deceased). The accused no.1 (brother of the complainant) was carrying a knife, whereas the other accused (sisters of the accused no.1) were instigating him to kill the deceased, and after the accused chased the deceased, he inflicted blows of knife and committed murder of the deceased. The charge for the offences punishable under sections 302, 147, 148, 449, 504 of the IPC was framed.

(4) An F.I.R. Exh.61 was registered with Dhoraji City Police Station, Rajkot, for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 504 of the IPC, vide I-C.R. No.172 of 1995. The investigating agency, during the course of investigation, recorded statements of the witnesses, drawn various panchnamas, including the panchnama of scene of offence, collected medical papers, post mortem report etc. for the purpose of proving the offence. After having found sufficient material against the respondents accused, a charge-sheet came to be filed in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class (JMFC). As the said Court lacks jurisdiction to try the offence, as the alleged offences being exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, it committed the case to the Sessions Court, Dahod, as provided under Section 209 of the Code, which was numbered as Sessions Case No.200 of 1995.

(5) Upon committal of the case to the Sessions Court, Dahod, the Sessions Judge, framed charges vide Exh.1 against the respondents - accused for the aforesaid offences. The respondents - accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. They were tried for the said offences and in order to bring home the charge, the prosecution has examined 21 prosecution witnesses and also produced various documentary evidence before the Trial Court. The prosecution had examined the complainant, witnesses, medical officer and the police witness, which, according to the prosecution, was sufficient enough to bring home the charge. The prosecution has also relied upon documentary evidences in support of the oral evidence led by them before the Trial Court. At the end of the evidence, necessary pursis was presented before the Trial Court declaring closer of evidence. The Trial Court has thereafter proceeded to record further statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Code. With such evidence being noticed, the Trial Court, after evaluating the same, arrived at a conclusion that the