ORAL JUDGMENT

1. The appellant State of Gujarat has filed this appeal under Section 378(1) read with Section 378(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred as “the Code”), being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the acquittal order dated 31.03.2009 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge and Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court, Anand (hereinafter referred as “the learned Trial Court”) in Sessions Case No. 63 of 2008.

2. Heard learned APP Ms. Jirga Jhaveri for the appellant State and learned Advocate Mr. Harshad Patel for the respondent- accused.

Order under Challenge:

3. Learned Additional Sessions Judge and Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court, Anand passed an order dated 31.03.2009, acquitting the respondent – Original accused Nos. 1 to 3 under Section 235(1) of the Code for the offences punishable under Sections 325, 323, 504, 114 of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 135 of the Bombay Police Act.

Arguments of the Prosecution:

4.1 Learned APP has argued that order of acquittal passed by the learned Trial Court is contrary to law and evidence on record. That the learned Trial Court ought to have to see that the prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable doubt by placing cogent and reliable evidence. That the learned Trial Court has not appreciated oral as well as documentary evidence in proper perspective. That the prosecution has proved incident with date, place and time.

4.2 It is further argued that the prosecution has proved the injuries inflicted by the accused to the complainant as well as injured witeness by producing medical evidence. That the FIR is duly proved in the deposition of the complainant. That the learned Trial Court has wrongly believed that the eye witness has not supported. That injured witness Hirabha has supported the case of the prosecution. And version of the injured witness supported by the medical evidence.

4.3 It is also argued that ingredients for the offence punishable under Sections 323, 325, 501 and 114 of IPC are established by giving cogent evidence. That the Judgment and order passed by the learned Trial Court is illegal, invalid and improper and the same deserves to be quashed and set aside. Learned APP has requested to allow this appeal and convict the offender for the offence charged against them.

Arguments of the defence:

5.1 Learned advocate Mr. Harshad Patel has argued that the judgment and order passed by the learned Trial Court is legal, valid in the eye of law as well as on facts. That the trial Court has rightly considered the oral as well as documentary evidence and acquitted the accused.

5.2 Learned advocate for the respondent further argued that the complainant has not stated as per the contents of the complaint therefore, complainant is rightly held not believable by the learned trial Court. That the learned trial Court has rightly considered the contradictions arise in the deposition of complainant Mr. Jagdishbhai. The eye witnesses have not supported the version of the prosecution. That the injured witnesses, Mr. Natubhai and Mr. Shambhubhai also have not supported the case of the prosecution. That the injured witness Hiraba has stated in her deposition that the Lakhabava has given blow at the left hand and the same has been contradicted in the cross examination of the defence and she has admitted that she has not dictated before police that the Lakhabhai has given blow on the left hand. Contradiction is proved. It is further argued that X-ray is not taken for the injury caused to the Hiraba.

Learned advocate for the respondent has requested to dismiss the appeal.

Facts of the Case:

6.1 The Complainant Jagdishbhai has filed a complaint before the Anklav Police Station, District: Anand on 26.11.2017. The said complaint was registered vide Crime Register No. II- 3070 of 2007 for the offence punishable under Sections 323 and 504 of the IPC and under Sections

135 of Bombay Police Act.

6.2 As per complaint the complainant’s farm is situated besides the