JUDGMENT :

HASMUKH D. SUTHAR, J.

1. Present appeal is directed by the appellant - State challenging the judgment and order of acquittal dated 09.12.1999 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Amreli, in Sessions Case No.35 of 1997, whereby the learned Sessions Judge acquitted the accused persons – the opponents herein for the offence punishable under Sections 449, 302 and 34 of the IPC.

2. As per earlier order dated 14.11.2025, respondent nos.1 and 2 have expired and appeal has abated qua them, therefore, the present appeal is heard only qua respondent no.3.

3. The brief facts of the prosecution case are that on 26.7.96 at 9:30 a.m., at Nageshree Village of Jafrabad Taluka in Amreli-District, the accused, (1) Wadiabhai Dogalbhai Varu (2) Jorubhai Jilubhai Varu and (3) Jelubhai Jilubhai Varu, entered the house of Kathi Nankubhai Kathubhai Varu with the intention of committing the crime and in the courtyard of his house, they assaulted the complainant Nankubhai Kathubhai Varu on head, legs and other parts of his body with an iron rod, causing him injuries and intentionally causing his death. Nankubhai Kathubhai Varu, who died during treatment, had filed a complaint against the accused at Nageshree Police Station. On the complaint of the complainant, the Nageshree Police registered a case against the accused persons under Sections 302, 34, 449 of the Indian Penal Code and 135 of the Bombay Police Act being Crime Register No.I-18/1996.

3.1 After registering the case upon finding sufficient evidence during investigation against the accused, Police Inspector of Nageshree Police Station had submitted the charge sheet in the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate. As the case was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, learned Magistrate Court under Section 209 of the Cr.P.C. committed the said case to the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Amreli, which came to be numbered as Sessions Case No35/1997. Since, the accused did not plead guilty and claimed to be tried, they were tried for the said offences.

3.2 At the trial, in order to bring home the charges levelled against the accused, the prosecution examined 14 witnesses and also relied upon 21 documentary evidence.

Oral evidence:-

Documentary evidence:-