The court held that acquittal requires compelling reasons for interference, emphasizing that mere serious injury does not suffice to establish intent under Section 307 of IPC.

JUDGMENT :

ILESH J. VORA, J.

1. Here is the Appeal by the State against the judgment and order of acquittal.

2. Being dissatisfied by the judgment and order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Himmatnagar, Sabarkantha, passed in Sessions Case No.1 of 1999, dated 06.12.2000, acquitting the respondent from the offence under Sections 323, 324, 307 and 504 of the IPC, the State has preferred instant appeal under Section 378 of the Cr.P.C.

3. This Court has heard Ms.Maithili Mehta, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, learned advocate Mr.Harnish Darji, for the respective parties.

4. Brief facts giving rise to file the present Appeal are that, the complainant Laxmansinh Jagatsinh – PW:1 and accused herein being a farmer knowing each other and according to the prosecution case, the accused had illegally trespassed into farm of the complainant and damaged his crops and that incident was prior to the registration of the FIR. The complainant, on 21.09.1991, he was in his farm and doing agricultural work and at that time, the respondent accused came to the field where the complainant scolded him about the earlier occasion of taking away the crops and illegally entered into the field. The matter escalated further and after heated exchange of words, the respondent accused stabbed the complainant with the knife. On account of hue and cry, the respondent accused fled away. The complainant injured taken to the Talod CHC and after preliminary treatment, he was referred to the higher center at Ahmedabad. The complainant admitted in the Civil Hospital and on the next day, he was operated for the injury and on the basis of registration of MLC case, he lodged an FIR against the accused. The FIR came to be registered with Talod Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 324, 504 of IPC and after filing the chargesheet, and upon addition of Section 307 of IPC, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions at Himmatnagar.

5. The learned Sessions Judge, Sabarkantha at Himmatgar framed charge under Sections 307, 323, 324 and 504 of IPC, against the accused to which, he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

6. In the course of trial, the prosecution adduced the following oral as well as documentary evidence in support of his case:

Oral evidence - 10

Documentary evidence - 6

7. On conclusion of oral evidence, the trial Court recorded further statements of the accused as provided under Section 313 of the Code, wherein, they claimed their innocence.

8. The learned Sessions Judge after appreciating and examining the oral as well as documentary evidence acquitted the accused herein for the offence under Sections 307, 504 of IPC, and convicted under Sections 323, 324 of the IPC.

9. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this acquittal appeal has been preferred by the State.

10. Oral Evidence adduced by the prosecu