- (1.)THE present appeal, under section 378 (1) (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is directed against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 18. 01. 1999 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kheda at Nadiad, in Sessions Case No. 5 of 1995, whereby all the accused have been acquitted from the charges leveled against them.
(2.)THE brief facts of the prosecution case are as under: 2. 1 It is the case of the prosecution that on 6-6-19994, in the village Vantadi, Taluka Matar, District Kheda, the deceased was brought and accused no. 4 caught hold of him from his neck and accused No. 2 has caught hold of the hands of the deceased, while accused no. 3 was sitting over his body and thereby they have murdered the deceased and accused no. 5 have taken out Rs. 5,000/- from the pocket of the deceased. It is also the case of the prosecution that on 4-6-1994, accused no. 1 had shown two silver coins to the deceased and said that accused no. 2 is having 2,000 coins of this kind and by saying that he introduced him with accused no. 2 and they have informed deceased to give 2,000 silver coins at the price of Rs. 15,000/- and thereafter, he was taken to the place of incident and asked Rs. 15,000/- from the deceased. The deceased gave Rs. 10,000/- and stated that he would give Rs. 5,000/- after getting the silver coins. Thereafter, the accused have strangulated the deceased and thus by forming an unlawful assembly and by cheating the deceased, accused have killed him. After killing the deceased, his dead body was buried in the sand on the bank of river Vatrak. Thereafter, the accused have also tried to destroy the evidence by removing blood stains as well as by hiding the weapons used in the offence. 2. 2 Therefore, complaint was filed before Matar Police Station against the accused which was registered as C. R. No. I-138 of 1994 on 11. 6. 1994 for the offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 406, 420, 143, 149, 404, 302, 201 of Indian Penal Code. On the basis of said complaint necessary investigation was carried out and statements of witnesses were recorded. Thereafter, the charge-sheet was filed in the Court of learned J. M. F. C. , Matar. As the offences were exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the learned Magistrate committed the said case to the Court of Sessions. Thereafter the charge was framed against the accused - respondents. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed to be tried. Thereafter, the trial was conducted against the respondents. The prosecution has examined the witnesses and also produced and relied upon several documents to prove the case against the respondents - accused. Thereafter, the statement of accused under Section 313 Cr. P. C. was recorded and after hearing arguments on behalf of prosecution and the defence, the learned Sessions Judge has acquitted the accused from the offences alleged against them. While appreciating the evidence on record and considering the documents the learned Judge has decided issue No. 3 in favour of the prosecution and Issue Nos. 1,2, 4 and 5 against the prosecution and observed that the prosecution has has failed to prove the case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The learned Sessions Judge has also come to the conclusion that there is contradiction between the complainant and the witnesses and they have not supported the case of the prosecution. The prosecution has failed to prove that the deceased was having Rs. 15,000/- on the date of incident. The prosecution also could not prove the last seen of deceased with any of the accused. 2. 3 Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the Judgment and Order dated 18. 01. 1999 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kheda at Nadiad , in Sessions Case No. 5 of 1995, the appellant - State has filed this Appeal. The original complainant has also filed above Criminal Revision Application against the said Judgment and order of learned Additional Sessions Judge.
(3.)IT was contended by learned APP 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 evidence against the present respondent. Learned APP has also taken this court through the oral as well as the entire documentary evidence.