IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 247 of 2001 FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ILESH J. VORA and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. T. VACHHANI ==========================================================

Approved for Reporting Yes No ==========================================================

STATE OF GUJARAT Versus KALUSINH VAJESINH MAKWANA (DELETED) & ORS.

==========================================================

Appearance:

MR RONAK RAVAL APP for the Appellant No. 1 DELETED for the Opponent(s)/Respondent No. 1 MR MAHESH BARIYA(2234) for the Respondent(s) No. 2,3,4,5 ==========================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ILESH J. VORA and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. T. VACHHANI Date : 13/11/2025

ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ILESH J. VORA)

1. Here is the Appeal by the State against the judgment and order of acquittal.

2. Being dissatisfied by the judgment and order passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate at Prantij, Sabarkantha dated 15.12.2000 in Criminal Case No. 1616 of 1998, acquitting the respondent from the offence under Sections 326, 325, 323, 504, read with Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act, State has preferred instant appeal under Section 378 of the Cr.P.C.

3. This Court has heard Mr. Ronak Raval, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, learned Counsel and Mr. Mahesh Bariya for the respective parties.

4. Brief facts giving rise to file the present Appeal are that, on

30.08.1998, the respondents accused armed with deadly weapon, assaulted deceased Hathisinh Javansinh and other witnesses like Dalpatsinh Zala and Jaswantsinh Makwana. The motive behind the assault was to the effect that, the deceased accused Kalusinh was unnecessarily hurled abusive upon the complainant party, for which, he was restrained not to hurled abusive, as a result, the accused respondents assaulted the witnesses and complainant. The FIR with the Talod Police Station came to be lodged for the aforesaid offences. The accused were arrested and upon due investigation, the chargesheet against them came to be filed. The Court of JMFC, Prantij framed the charge against the respondents accused, which they did not admit and claimed to be tried.

5. In order to prove the charge, the prosecution has examined 15 following material witnesses:

6. During the course of the trial, the prosecution has proved and produced 15 documents:

7. On conclusion of oral evidence, the trial Court recorded further statements of the accused as provided under Section 313 of the Code, wherein, they claimed their innocence.

8. The learned court of JMFC, Prantij, after appreciating and examining the oral as well as documentary evidence acquitted the respondents accused herein for the offences with which they were charged, on the ground that, t