IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 368 of 2002 FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE VAIBHAVI D. NANAVATI and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. T. VACHHANI ==========================================================

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

STATE OF GUJARAT Versus JENUDDIN CHANDBHAI SHEIKH & ORS.

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

Appearance:

MR MANAN MAHETA, APP for the Appellant(s) No. 1 DR. HARDIK K RAVAL(6366) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No.

1,10,2,3,4,5,7,8,9 HCLS COMMITTEE(4998) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No.

1,10,2,3,4,5,7,8,9 LEAVE TO APPEAL REFUSED for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 6 ==========================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE VAIBHAVI D. NANAVATI and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. T. VACHHANI Date : 07/02/2026

ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER : HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE VAIBHAVI D. NANAVATI)

1. Heard Mr. Manan Maheta, the learned APP appearing for the appellant – State.

2. The present Appeal is preferred under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the judgment and order passed by the learned Sessions Court, Ahmedabad in Sessions Case Nos.238 and 240 of 1999 dated 7.12.2001 whereby the respondents - accused came to be acquitted for the offences punishable under Sections 120B, 147, 148, 149 read with Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, under Section 135(1) of the Bombay Police Act and under Section 25(1)(c)A of the Arms Act.

3. It is pertinent to note that the accused Nos.1, 2, 5, 7 and 10 have expired. The appeal stands abated qua the said accused. Leave to appeal is refused for the accused No.6 – Mohammed Yakub Ayub Shaikh on 29.7.2003 and is not found.

4. Brief facts leading to the filing of the present appeal read thus :-

4.1 Briefly stated, it is the case of the prosecution that 03 days prior to 3.1.1998 there was exchange of words between the complainant and accused No.5 and 7, when the said accused brought animals in open ground for butchering in front of the house of the complainant. On 3.1.1998, while the complainant was going by the side of the entrance of the cattle market, the accused No.7 Mohmmad Iqubal @ Chino Mohmmad Hanif Qureshi brought a revolver from his Maruti Car lying there and inserted the stem of the gun on the mouth of the complainant. At that time, the other accused came there and beat the complainant on the back side of his head, wrist of the right hand, on the tibia of the right leg and on the left side of the spine. That accused Mohmmad Salim gave sword blow on the left back side of the head of the complainant. That accused Shahjahankhan @ Sajan Pathan gave sword blow on the wrist of right hand of the complainant. That accused Aurangzeb Sheikh and Aiyubkhan Pathan gave sword blow on the head of the complainant. That accused Mohmmad Yaqube caused injury on the wrist of the right hand of the complainant. The accused Jenuddin Sheikh caused injury on the tibia of the right leg of the complainant. That accused Mohmmad Hanif Pathan caused injury on the spine of the complainant. That accused Amanullakhan caused injury on right shoulder of the complainant.

In the aforesaid set of facts, the complaint came to be filed and on investigation police filed the charge-sheet. As accused Amanullakhan was arrested later, there are two sessions cases, namely, Sessions case Nos. 238/1999 and 240/1999.

5. Mr. Manan Maheta, the learned APP relied on the grounds stated in the memo of the Appeal. The learned APP appearing for the appellant – State submits that the impugned judgment passed by the learned Sessions Judge requires to be interfered with

6. The competent Court by the impugned judgment dated

7.12.2001 framed the following points of determination :-

“(1) Whether the prosecution has been able to prove the fact that, approximately three days prior to 3-1-98, in the compound in front of the house of complainant G