(1.) The present appeal, under section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity, 'the Code') is directed against the
judgment and order dated 27/06/1994, passed by the learned
Additional City Sessions Judge, Court No. 20, Ahmedabad, in
Sessions Case No. 285 of 1989, whereby the respondent herein
original accused has been acquitted of the charges levelled
against him for the offences punishable under Sections 307 and
332 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for brevity, 'the IPC') and Section 135(1) of the Bombay Police Act.
(2.) Brief facts of the prosecution case are that on 25/12/1988 at about 11:00 a.m. on Kalupur Station Road, near Motibhai
Hirabhai Market, near the cabin of Municipal Controller, the
respondent herein original accused since was quarreling with
one Mahesh Parmanand, original complainant Vikramsinh
Udaysinh Chavda, an Unarmed Police Constable, who was on
duty, intervened and separated them and keeping grudge of the
same, the respondent accused, allegedly attacked the
complainant with a wooden plank and thereby, caused severe
injuries to him. Thus, the respondent accused committed the
offence alleged against him, for which, a complaint came to be
2.1 Pursuant to the complaint, investigation was carried out. After investigation, chargesheet was filed and as the case was triable by the Court of Sessions, it was committed to the City Sessions Court at Ahmedabad.
2.2 The trial Court framed charge against the accused. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed to be tried. Therefore, the prosecution produced oral as well as documentary evidence.
2.3 In order to bring home the charge against the accused, the prosecution has examined following witnesses, as under:
2.4 The prosecution has also produced several documentary evidence viz. Extract of vardhi of Shardaben Hospital, report under Section 157, exh. 48, complaint, Panchnama of seizure of clothes of the complainant, Panchnama of physical condition of the accused, Panchnama of place of offence, Panchnama of wooden plank recovered at the instance of the accused, Medical Certificate of the complainant and the copy of Notification of the Police Commissioner.
2.5 At the end of the trial and after recording the Further Statement of the accused under Section 313 of Code and hearing arguments on behalf of prosecution and the defence, the learned Sessions Judge acquitted the respondent of all the charges levelled against him by impugned judgment and order.
2.6 Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment and order passed by the Sessions Court, the appellant State has preferred the present appeal.
(3.) We have heard Ms. Shruti Pathak, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, for the appellant State and Mr. Manraj Barot,
learned advocate for the respondent original accused.
3.1 Ms. Pathak, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the appellant State has submitted that the trial Court
committed an error in acquitting the respondent accused. It
was contended by her that the judgment and order of the
Sessions Court is against the provisions of law; the Sessions
Court has not properly considered the evidence led by the
prosecution and looking to the provisions of law itself, it is
established that the prosecution has proved the whole
ingredients of the offence, alleged against the present
respondent. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has also
taken this Court through the oral as well as the entire
documentary evidence and submitted that considering the
evidence of complainant Vikramsinh Udaysinh Chavda, exh. 12
and the medical evidence, the prosecution has successfully
proved its case against the respondent beyond reasonable doubt,
however, the learned trial Judge did not believe the same and
has acquitted the respondent accused and thereby, has
committed a grave error of law and evidence on record, which
requires to be rectified by this Court. Eventually, she requested
to allow the present appeal.;