The prosecution failed to establish intent or conspiracy for attempted murder, leading to the dismissal of the appeal against acquittal.

ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH A. TRIVEDI)

1. This appeal under Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as “the Code”) is filed by the victim – first informant, challenging the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Mehsana, dated 21.03.2024 rendered in Sessions Case No. 97 of 2016, whereby respondents – accused have come to be acquitted of the charge for the offences punishable under Sections 307, 115, 120(B), 506(1) and 34 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as “the IPC”) as also under Section 135 of the Gujarat Police Act (hereinafter referred to as “the GP Act”).

2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is narrated here as under:-

2.1 At village Bechar – Becharaji, Survey No. 408 is in the name of 28 persons, whereas Survey No. 409 is in the name of 7 persons, as claimed in the First Information Report.

It is claimed that for the said parcels of land, before many years, there were deeds executed and though, the name of real owners is stated in the record of Becharaji Panchayat, one Patel Jayantibhai Harjivandas, on 09.08.2011, executed sale deed for the said land, being Document No. 1101/11 and

1102/11, and thereby, sold it to the purchaser.

2.2 In respect thereof, first-informant as also other witnesses initiated proceedings before the Collector, Mehsana, and therefore, the Collector directed to register different offences.

2.3 In response thereto, against the accused No. 1 – Parmar Rameshbhai Kamabhai, till 01.11.2013, in all 5 offences were registered. Keeping that grudge in mind, accused administered threat of dire consequences to the first-informant – Nareshbhai.

2.4 It is further asserted that, before four days to the date of incident, accused No. 1 conspired together with accused Nos. 2 and 3 to commit murder of the first-informant. In response thereto, accused Nos. 1 and 3 sent accused Nos. 2, 4, 5 and 6 on 01.11.2013 and 02.11.2013 at the residence of first-informant and his ofÏce in a Swift car bearing Registration No. GJ-1-KE-3119 and carried out recce and thereafter, as asserted in the FIR, on 02.11.2013, at about 10:30 to 11:00 a.m., accused Nos. 2, 4, 5 and 6 having motorcycle, without bearing Registration number, and a Scorpio car, bearing Registration No. GJ-8-F-7279, with two knives in it, attempted to stop the car of the first-informant near Kalri Railway Crossing in Becharaji Town but apprehending such action of the accused, first-informant moved very fast from there and immediately went to the Police station.

2.5 It is further asserted in the First Information Report that on such action, Police came there and arrested accused Nos. 4 to 6 along with the car used for the purpose, containing two dangerous knives, whereas accused No. 2 – Dineshbhai ran away in his Swift car bearing Registration No. GJ-1-KE-3119. Thus, it is alleged that accused conspired together with a view to commit murder of the first-informant, arrested with weapons as also vehicles, abetted each other and for which, offence is registered with Becharaji Police station for the aforesaid offences as mentioned.

2.6 On registration of such offence, investigation was carried out, statements of witnesses were recorded, necessary panchnamas were drawn, other medical and scientific evidence were collected and on conclusion of investigation, as offence is said to have been committed, investigating authority submitted a charge-sheet in the Court of competent Magistrate. Since the offence, as alleged in the charge-sheet, is exclusively triable by Court of Sessions, learned Magistrate committed the same to the Court of Sessions.

2.7 After ascertaining from the accused and with the Registry about compliance of the provisions of “the Code”, charge came to be framed against the accused vide Exhibit-13. 2.8 Since the accused did not plead guilty to the charge and claimed to be tried, prosecution examined in all 14 witnesses to prove the case against