Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 586 of 1992 FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.G.URAIZEE ================================================================
1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?
2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ?
3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?
4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ?
5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ?
================================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT....Appellant(s)
Versus MAHENDRA ALIAS MANGO SHANTILAL PATEL....Opponent(s)/Respondent(s)
================================================================
Appearance:
MR HS SONI, ADDL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the Appellant(s) No. 1 MR NITIN T GANDHI, ADVOCATE for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1 ================================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.G.URAIZEE Date : 16/09/2014
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI)
1. The present appeal, under section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is directed against the judgement and order dated 05.03.1992 passed by the Additional City Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad in Sessions Case No. 339 of 1991 whereby the accused has been acquitted of the charges leveled against him.
2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are that on 03.04.1991 at Dudhwali Pole naka, Nr. Mahakali Pan parlour, on the public road, with the intention of causing death of deceased, the accused gave a knife blow and caused his death. It is the case of the prosecution that on 03.04.1991, while the complainant was home, the accused came to her house twice inquiring about the whereabouts of the deceased. On asking the reason, the accused told the complainant that he was going to kill the deceased. Thereafter, the accused went to the entrance of the pole from where he saw the deceased coming by foot. The accused gave fist blows to the deceased and thereafter took out a pen-knife from his pocket and inflicted a blow on the left side of his chest. The complainant tried to intervene but in vain. The deceased was taken to hospital for treatment but he succumbed to the injuries.
2.1 The trial Court framed charge against the accused. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed to be tried. Therefore, the prosecution produced oral as well as documentary evidence. To prove the case against the accused, the prosecution has examined the following witnesses:
| P.W. No. | Name of Witness | Exhibit No. |
| 1 | Pratik Patel | 13 |
| 2 | Rambhaben Patel | 15 |
| 3 | Dr. Sanatkumar Shah | 16 |
| 4 | Rameshbhai Vasava | 17 |
| 5 | Umanath Prabhu | 21 |
| 6 | Maksadkhan Pathan | 23 |
| 7 | T.K. Abdulsattar Shaikh | 24 |
| 8 | Pravinkumar Patel | 26 |
| 9 | Hitesh Mehta | 30 |
| 10 | Madhavlal Chauhan | 32 |
| 11 | Hetalben Patel | 33 |
| 12 | Ratansinh Vaghela | 34 |
| 13 | Rakeshbhai Panchal | 37 |
| 14 | Jagdishbhai Joshi | 38 |
2.2 At the end of the trial and after recording the statement of the accused under section 313 of Cr.P.C., and hearing arguments on behalf of prosecution and the defence, the learned Additional Sessions Judge acquitted the respondent of all the charges leveled against him by impugned judgement and order. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgement and order passed by the Sessions Court the appellant State has preferred the present appeal.
3. Mr. Soni, learned APP appearing for the appellant-State has submitted that the trial court committed an error in releasing the respondent-accused. It was contended by Mr. Soni, that the judgement and order of the Sessions Court is against the provisions of law; the Sessions Court has not properly considered the evidence led by the prosecution and looking to the provisions of law itself it is established that the prosecution has proved the whole ingredients of the evidence against the present respondent. Learned APP has also taken this court through the oral as well as the entire documentary evidence.
4. Mr. Gandhi, learned advocate appearing for the respondent supported the impugned judgement and order and submitted that the same having been passed in accordance with law does not call for any interference. He submitted that the prosecution has failed to prove the case against the respondent beyond reasonable doubt.
5. At the outset it is required to be noted that the principles which would govern and regulate the hearing of appeal by this Court against an order of acquittal passed by the trial Court have been very succinctly explained by the Apex Court in a catena of decisions. In the case of M.S. Narayana Menon @ Mani Vs. State of Kerala & Anr, reported in (2006)6 SCC, 39, the Apex Court has narrated about the powers of the High Court in appeal against the order of acquittal. In para 54 of the decision, the Apex Court has observed as under:
“54. In any event the High Court entertained an appeal treating to be an appeal against acquittal, it was in fact exercising the revisional jurisd
