Acquittal cannot be disturbed unless the trial court's findings are perverse or not supported by evidence; proof beyond reasonable doubt is essential.

CAV JUDGMENT

(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP N. BHATT)

1. Feeling aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment and order of acquittal dated 31.08.1998 passed by the learned 4^th Additional Sessions Judge, Nadiad in Sessions Case No.90 of 1995 for the offences punishable under Sections 302 , 201 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, the appellant – State of Gujarat has preferred this appeal as provided under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, “the Code”) inter alia challenging the judgment and order of acquittal in favour of the respondents – accused. The present appeal is abated qua respondent No.2 vide separate order dated 22.03.2022 passed by this Court.

2. Brief facts of the case are as under:

2.1 On 29.11.1994 at about 10 p.m., Village-Napa Vanta, Taluka- Borsad, District-Kheda, one Manubha Bachubhai, who was nephew of the complainant-Mansingbhai Bharatsing Rana, was called by his friend- Siddikbha to the field of one Ramsinh Udesinh, whereby as per the case of the prosecution, the accused No.1-Chhatrasinh Ghemalsinh Rana had given the blow by dharia on the head of Manubha Bachubha and accused No.2-Abdul Rahim Takhatsinh Rana had tried to throttle the neck of the said-Manubha. Further, as the Manubha had died, his dead body was thrown on the main road by creating scene that said-Manubha died due to accident. Therefore, the complainant-Mansingbhai Bharatsing Rana has lodged the complaint on 30.11.1994 before the concerned police station by stating that on 29.11.1994 at about 9:15 p.m., his nephew-Manubha Bachubha went from his house towards his farm. At about 10:00 p.m., one villager Hamirsinh Fatesinh Rana has informed complainant that his nephew Manubha Bachubha has met with an accident near Napa Vanta bus stand and died on the spot. Therefore, he alongwith Sarpanch and his brother Amarsinh @ Himmatsinh, went to the place of incident. Thereafter, he found Manubha, lying on the road and had received head injuries. Thereafter, he has filed the complaint by indicating above stated facts. Initially, the police has investigated it as an accidental case and also inquest of the dead body carried out. Further, blood marks are also found from nearby field at the place of incident. Accordingly, it was informed to the A.P.I., Borsad that the said incident is not occurred due to the accident but it seems that some offence of murder has been taken placed. The P.S.I.-Sujansinh had carried out further investigation and has recorded the statements of the witnesses and has also carried out Panchnama etc. and dogs squad was also called for as a part of process of investigation.

2.2 In pursuance of the complaint lodged by the complainant, the investigating agency recorded the statements of the witnesses, collected the relevant documentary evidence and other relevant evidences for the purpose of proving the offence. After having material evidence against the respondents-accused, charge-sheet came to be filed before the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, at Borsad. As the said Court lacks jurisdiction to try the offence, it committed the case to the Sessions Court, Nadiad as provided under Section 209 of the Code. Thereafter, in Sessions Case No.90 of 1995 is tried by the learned Session Court, Nadiad.

2.3 Upon committal of the case to the Session Court, Nadiad, the learned Session Judge framed the charge at Exh.3 against the respondents-accused for the aforesaid offence. The respondents-accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

2.4 In order to bring home charge, the prosecution has examined 13 witnesses and also produced various documentary evidence before the trial Court, more