An appellate court may not disturb a trial court's acquittal unless the latter's judgment is unreasonable or perverse, emphasizing the presumption of innocence.

JUDGMENT :

L. S. Pirzada, J.

1. Rule. Learned APP waives service of Rule on behalf of the respondent – State.

2. The present revision application has been preferred by the petitioner, who is the injured person, under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, against the judgment of acquittal passed by the Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 6, City Civil and Sessions Court, Ahmedabad, in Sessions Case No. 86 of 2003. By the said judgment dated 15.07.2004, all the accused persons were acquitted for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 307, and 114 of the Indian Penal Code, as well as Section 135(1) of the Bombay Police Act. Respondent No. 1 – State has been represented by the Learned APP Mr. H. K. Patel. Respondent Nos. 2, 4, 5, and 6 are the original accused persons. During the pendency of this revision application, Respondent No. 3, who was also one of the original accused, has expired. Accordingly, the revision application stands abated insofar as Respondent No. 3 is concerned.

3. Heard the Learned Advocate for the Petitioner – Injured and it is submitted by him that the present petitioner is injured in the incident. Further, it is submitted that the FIR came to be given by complainant, Mr. Mohammad Imran, on 28.04.2002 at Gomtipur Police Station vide first C.R. No.109 of 2002 against 3 to 4 unidentified people and in the same incident, as per the complaint, present petitioner who is a witness, has also been injured, and other person, who is the brother of the complainant, Mr. Mohammad Iliyas was also injured, and for that, FIR has been given, and subsequently, during the treatment, the other injured - Mr. Mohammad Iliyas has been died, and the post-mortem was carried out and subsequently, after investigation, the chargesheet has been filed against the original accused persons, for the offence punishable under Sections 302, 307, and 114 of the Indian Penal Code, as well as under Section 135(1) of the Bombay Police Act. Further, it is submitted that the prosecution has examined total 11 witnesses and so far as the present petitioner is concerned, he is the eye-witness to the incident and also suffered an injury, and he and the deceased was going on the motorcycle and assault was taken place, and so far as the present petitioner has in the evidence, before the Court, given the name of the Respondent No. 2, Kamlesh @ Pavlo Valjibhai Rathod, as an assailant of the deceased – Mr. Mohammad Iliyas. Further, it is submitted that even as per the investigation, a knife, used in the commission of the crime has been discovered, at the instance of the respondent No. 2, accused Kamlesh Kamlesh @ Pavlo Valjibhai Rathod, and as per the report of the FSL, it suggests that the cut marks found on the cloth of the deceased can be possibly by the knife, and even this aspect has not been considered by the learned Sessions Judge. Further, it is submitted that the injured witness, the present petitioner Mohammad Tahir, has supported the case of the prosecution, and he has also identified the accused in the Court, but his evidence has not been properly appreciated by the learned Sessions Judge. Further, from the evidence of the witness, who is also injured in the crime, as an eye-witness, and his evidence has a great importance and only on the basis of this evidence, the involvement of the other original accused persons - 1 to 6 have been established, but this fact has also not been considered. Hence, considering this, it is submitted that the judgment of the acquittal passed by the learned Sessions Judge is required to be set aside and the present respondent nos. 2, 4, 5 and 6 be convicted and the revision applicatio