JUDGMENT :

A.Y. KOGJE, J.

1. The present appeal is preferred by the State under Section-378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 06.03.1995 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Bhavnagar in sessions case no.132 of 1993. By the impugned judgment and order, the sessions Court acquitted the respondents-accused for offence under section 302, 147, 148, 149, 224 and 34 of Indian Penal Code and under section 135 of the Bombay Police Act.

2. The case pertains to an incident that occurred in Sarva village of Botad Taluka, District Bhavnagar, on 09.03.1993, at around 4:30 PM, where an altercation over the grazing of a buffalo in the field led the respondents-accused to form an unlawful assembly with the common intention of causing the death of two brothers, Usmanbhai and Mahmadbhai. Armed with deadly weapons, they assaulted Usmanbhai and Mahmadbhai with Dhariyas (sharp weapons), sticks, pipes, and Bhala (sharp weapon), inflicting injuries that resulted in their death. Thus, the respondents-accused committed offenses punishable under Sections 302, 147, 148, 149, 224, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, along with Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act.

3. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the learned Trial Judge committed a serious error in acquitting the respondents-accused despite clear and cogent evidence presented by the prosecution.

3.1 It is submitted that The injured eyewitnesses, including the complainant, consistently narrated the incident and identified the accused as the perpetrators. Their testimonies were natural, reliable, and corroborated by medical evidence.

3.2 It is submitted that the postmortem report confirmed that the injuries sustained by the deceased were sufficient in the ordinary course to cause death. This scientific evidence supports the prosecution case, which the Trial Court failed to appreciate.

3.3 It is submitted that the Learned Judge overlooked the fact that a cross-case was filed by the accused themselves, which establishes their presence at the scene of the crime and their active involvement in the offense.

3.4 It is submitted that the complainant promptly lodged an FIR after the incident, which further strengthens the case. The Trial Court failed to give due weight to this crucial fact.

3.5 It is submitted that the Learned Judge erred in discarding prosecution evidence based on minor discrepancies in witness statements. Such variations are natural over time and do not affect the credibility of witnesses.

3.6 It is submitted that the learned Trial Court wrongly relied on the absence of an identification parade as a ground for acquittal. Since the accused were well-known to the complainant and witnesses, conducting an identification parade was unnecessary.

3.7 It is submitted that the learned Trial Judge disregarded strong and cogent evidence and acquitted the accused on technical grounds, resulting in a miscarriage of justice. Given the strong evidence against the accused, the order of acquittal is legally unsustainable and merits interference by this Court.

4. As against this, learned Advocate for the respondent-accused has supported the judgment of acquittal submitting that Learned Advocate for the Respondents-Accused submitted that the learned Trial Judge has rightly acquitted the respondents-accused after a proper appreciation of the evidence on record. The prosecution failed to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt, and therefore, the acquittal does not warrant interference by this Court.

4.1 It is submitted that the prosecution primarily relied on interested witnesses, the complainant and related persons and failed to examine any independent witnesses. The reliability of the prosecution witnesses is questionable and their evidence was riddled with inconsistencies and contradictions.

4.2 It is submitted that the prosecution failed to explain the injuries sustained by the accused, which creates serious doubt regarding the prosecution’s version