An appellate court will not interfere with an acquittal unless the findings are perverse or suffer from manifest legal error, as a double presumption of innocence reinforces the accused's position. The prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, especially in cross-case scenarios involving unexplained evidentiary inconsistencies.

JUDGMENT :

MOOL CHAND TYAGI, J.

1. The present Appeal is filed by the Appellant – State of Gujarat under the provisions of sub-sections (1) & (3) of Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ( hereinafter be referred to as Cr.P.C. ) challenging the Judgment dated 30.11.1999 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gandhinagar (hereinafter be referred to as the Ld. Trial Court/Ld.ASJ) in Sessions Case No.40 of 1998, whereby the Respondents herein were ordered to be acquitted of the charges for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 323, 114 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code,1860 ( hereinafter be referred to as IPC ) and Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act.

2. It emerges from the record that during the pendency of the appeal, respondent No.3-Himmatji Babuji Thakor has expired. Hence, the present appeal qua respondent No. 3-Himmatji Babuji Thakor stands abated.

3. The facts and circumstances giving rise to the filing of the present appeal are as follows: The complainant-Jadiben is a resident of Motavas, Village-Por, Taluka:Gandhinagar. On 28.05.1998, during the night hours, while the complainant Jadiben was sitting outside her house along with her daughter Lilaben and daughter-in-law Hansaben, accused No.1-Chamanji @ Gordhanji Himmatji Thakore, who resides in the same locality, came there and demanded that water be diverted to his field. He asked the complainant to turn on the water-supply and arrange for the water. In response, Jadiben informed him that there was no electricity supply at that time and that the water would be supplied once electricity was restored. Upon this, accused No.1 became enraged and started abusing her. Thereafter, his elder brother, accused No.2 – Ambalal, who was accompanying him and was holding a stick, inflicted a blow on the right knee of Jadiben. Accused No.4 – Kushkiben then threw a brick at Jadiben, which struck her on the mouth. Accused No.2 – Ambalal also inflicted a brick blow on the nose of Lilaben. At that time, Hansaben was present along with her infant son Kishan, aged about 8 months. Accused No.1 – Chamanji inflicted a brick blow on the head of the said infant Kishan, causing grievous injuries. During the course of the incident, Punjabhai Thakore intervened, upon which all the accused persons fled from the scene. As the complainant’s son - Dineshji was out of station, he was called thereafter. The injured persons namely Jadiben, Lilaben, and infant Kishan were taken to Gandhinagar Civil Hospital for treatment. On the following day, Kishan was shifted to Ahmedabad Civil Hospital for further treatment; however, during the course of treatment, he succumbed to his injuries.

4. Accordingly, FIR being I.C.R.No.145 of 1998 was lodged at Adalaj Police Station, Tal–Gandhinagar and investigation was carried out and ultimately, charge-sheet came to be filed against the accused under Sections 302, 323, 114 and 504 of the IPC and Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act before the Judicial Magistrate. As the case was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, learned Magistrate under Section 209 of the Cr.P.C. committed the said case to the Court of Sessions Court, Gandhinagar, which came to be numbered as Sessions Case No.40/1998.

5. On 06.08.1999, the learned Trial Court framed the charges at Exh. 3 under Sections 302, 323, 114 and 504