IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 876 of 1999 FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE GITA GOPI and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK ==========================================

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

STATE OF GUJARAT Versus GOPALBHAI MANSINGBHAI ==========================================

Appearance:

MR HARDIK MEHTA APP for the Appellant(s) No. 1 BAILABLE WARRANT UNSERVED for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s)

No. 1 NOTICE SERVED for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1 ==========================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE GITA GOPI and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK Date : 06/02/2026

ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK)

1. The appellant - State of Gujarat has preferred this appeal under Section 378(1)(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the judgment and order dated 21.05.1999 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sabarkantha, Camp at Modasa (hereinafter be referred to as “the trial Court”) in Sessions Case No.101 of 1998, whereby, the trial Court has acquitted the original accused (respondent herein) for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 307 etc of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter be referred to as “the IPC) and under Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act.

2. Brief facts of the present case are, in nutshell, as under:-

2.1 It is the case of the prosecution that the accused along with his wife and cousin brother came from Madhya Pradesh to Gujarat prior to the date of incident for the purpose of labour work in Jyoti Quory situated at Jashvantpura, Taluka: Bayad, Modasa as the mother-in-law and father-in-law were doing labour work at Quory. It is the case of the prosecution that on 14.07.1998, when the complainant was doing his work, Mahetaji Chamanbhai of Jyoti Quory came there and informed him that the quarrel took place between two persons in Quory, out of which one person had caused injury with axe to the other person and on knowing this fact, he reached at Jyoti Quory, where, he had seen that his brother Ikbal and other persons were present there where Avtar (injured) was being taken to the hospital. It is further the case of the prosecution that on being asked to the accused, he had stated that he had suspicion that the injured was having illicit relation with his wife and, therefore, he ran behind injured and had beaten him and the accused had inflicted axe blow upon Avtar and, therefore, the injured died. The complainant had filed the complaint before the Bayad Police Station which was registered as C.R.No.I – 60 of 1998 for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 307 etc of the IPC and under Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act.

2.2 Pursuant to the aforesaid FIR, the police commenced investigation, prepared panchnama of the scene of offence, recorded the statements of various witnesses and collected the evidence and thereafter arrested the accused and after completion of investigation, as the sufficient evidence was found, the police has filed the Charge- Sheet No.63 of 1998 against the accused before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class which was registered as Criminal Case No.534 of 1998. As the offence was triable by the Court of Sessions, the Judicial Magistrate, First Class has committed the case under Section 209 of the Criminal Procedure Code to the Court of Sessions wherein it has been registered as Sessions Case No.101 of 1998.

2.3 The charge against the accused came to be framed by the trial Court vide Exhibit 7 for the aforesaid offences against the accused. On being explained it to him, the accused has denied having committed any offence. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and pleaded for trial and hence, the case was tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sabarkantha, Camp at Modasa.

3. It appears from the records that to prove the case, the prosecution has examined the following witnesses:-

4. In add