Conviction upheld based on consistent witness testimonies and victim's identification, despite absence of blood on the weapon; evidentiary credibility maintained.

JUDGMENT :

ILESH J. VORA, J.

Since this matter is heard by this Bench earlier finally and kept for orders today, the same is disposed of by the following judgment.

1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and order of conviction dated 18.06.2015 passed by the learned 11th Additional Sessions Judge, Surat in Sessions Case No.25 of 2006 for the offences under Section 302 of INDIAN PENAL CODE , 1860, the appellant has preferred this appeal as provided under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“the Code” for short).

2. The case of the prosecution is that, on 03.07.2000, when the complainant – Ranchhodbhai Hamirbhai Hadiya, P.S.I., D.C.B. Police Station, Surat was on duty and during his patrolling in sensitive areas of Surat City due to announcement of shutdown by the political parties on account of massive attack by bomb and firing by the terrorists on the pilgrimages of Amarnath on 02.08.2000, he received a message from Control Room that there is a riot in Nanavat area, which is situated behind the Surat Municipal Corporation. Therefore, immediately, the complainant went, along with two vehicles, from Chauta Bazar to Nanavat area and he saw that one person was lying on road and three persons were attacking on him and out of said three, two were having knife and one was having sword. Soon after seeing the police, all the three accused were trying to escape from there towards the small street near them, however, the police personnel caught one accused out of three with knife, but two were succeeded in escaping. The person lying on the road was Kiran Maheshbhai Kakadia and upon asked by the police to said Kiran, he said that the person who caught by the police and other two persons have beaten him. The accused who has been caught by the police with knife is the present appellant. Therefore, the injured person viz., Kiran was shifted to the hospital by the police personnel in 108 ambulance, however, he succumbed to the injuries during the treatment. Therefore, a complaint is lodged by the complainant with regard to the said incident before the Chowk Bazar Police Station, Surat, which was registered as C.R.-I No. 142 of 2000 for the offences under Sections 302 , 307, 324, 143, 147, 148, 149, 337 and 427 of INDIAN PENAL CODE , 1860 and Section 135 of the BOMBAY POLICE ACT .

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 three accused, including present appellant, charge-sheet came to be filed against them, in the Court of learned 2nd Additional Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Surat. As said Court lacks jurisdiction to try the offence, it committed the case to the Sessions Judge, Surat as provided under section 209 of the Code.

4. Upon committal of the cases to the Sessions Court, Surat, learned Sessions Judge framed charge against the accused persons for the aforesaid offences. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. In order to bring home charge, the prosecution has examined 22 witnesses and also produced 15 documentary evidence before the learned trial Court, more particularly described in Paras : 6 and 7 of the impugned judgment and order.

6. On conclusion of evidence on the part of the prosecution, the trial Court put various incriminating circumstances appearing in the evidence to the appellant - accused so as to obtain their explanation/answer as provided u/s 313 of the Code. In the further statement, the appellant - accused denied all incriminating circumstances appearing against him as false and further stated that he is innocent and false case has been filed against him. After hearing both the sides and after analysis of evidence adduced by the prosecution