- (1.)THIS appeal, under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is directed against the judgment and order dated 27. 09. 1988 passed by the learned Asst. Sessions Judge, Valsad at Navsari in Sessions Case No. 45 of 1986, whereby, the respondents have been acquitted from the charges leveled against them.
(2.)THE brief facts of the prosecution case are as under:
2. 1 During 1986, Shashikant Baburao Trikam and the respondents herein were working as labourers in a mill situated at Billimora, Taluka Gandevi, District Valsad. As some disputes were prevailing in the said mill regarding trade union issues, police personnel were deployed inside the mill. On 30. 01. 1986, at around 0745 hrs. , some of the labourers, including said Shashikant Trikam, went to the Canteen of the mill to have some light refreshments during the break. At around 0830 hrs. , the respondents came there and out of them, respondent no. 2 picked up a quarrel with Shashikant Trikam. During that period, respondent nos. 1 and 3 caught hold of Shashikant Trikam and respondent no. 2 inflicted a pipe blow on the head. As the result of the said blow, said Shashikant Trikam sustained severe injury and was taken to the Billimora Hospital.

2. 2 Therefore, a complaint with respect to the aforesaid offence was filed against the respondents. Necessary investigation was carried out and statements of several witnesses were recorded. During the course of investigation, as sufficient material was found against the respondents, they were arrested and, ultimately, charge-sheet was filed against them before the concerned Magistrate Court. However, as the case was exclusively triable by the Sessions Court, the same was committed to the Sessions Court, Navsari.

2. 3 On production of the accused, charge was framed but, as they pleaded not guilty, trial was initiated. To prove the case against the respondents, the prosecution had examined ten witnesses, viz. PW-1 Sampatbhai Shankarbhai Golap at Ex. 11, PW-2 Kishorbhai Chotubhai Devdhekar at Ex. 13, PW-3 Bajirao Vetala at Ex. 17, PW-4 Bharatbhai Shivram Nikam at Ex. 20, PW-5 Prahlad Baburao at Ex. 21, PW-6 Dr. Dilip Ishwarlal Dalal at Ex. 22, PW-7 Shashikant Baburao at Ex. 26, PW-8 Rarjnarayan Gayaprasad at Ex. 27, PW-9 Rajeshri Anna at Ex. 28 and PW-10 Thakorbhai Chunilal at Ex. 29 and had placed reliance upon several documentary evidence, more particularly, the complaint at Ex. 12, the dying declaration of the injured at Ex. 15, the medical certificate of the injured at Ex. 23, the panchnama of the scene of offence at Ex. 18 and the FSL Report at Ex. 31. On submission of the closing purshis, the further statement of the accused under Section 313 of Cr. P. C. was recorded. Ultimately, the Court below acquitted the respondents of all the charges, by impugned judgment and order. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment and order passed by the Sessions Court, the appellant State has preferred the present appeal.

(3.)IT was contended by learned APP that the judgment and order of the Court below is against the provisions of law; the Court below has not properly considered the evidence led by the prosecution and that looking to the provisions of law, it is established that the prosecution has proved the ingredients of the offence against the respondents beyond doubt. Learned APP has taken us through the oral as well as the documentary evidence available on record.