UDAYVIRSING BRAHMADATTSING BHADORIYA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Feeling aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment and order of acquittal dtd. 6/1/2020 passed by the learned City Civil, & Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad in Sessions Case No.362 of 2018 whereby the learned trial Court was pleased to release respondent No.2-Jigneshkumar Vashrambhai Parmar (Original Accused No.4) for the offences punishable under Ss. 307 , 452 , 323 , 120(b) , 294(b) and 114 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, under Sec. 25(1b) a of the Arms Act and under Sec. 135(1) of the Gujarat Prohibition Act, the appellant - Udayvirsing Brahmadattsing Bhadoriya (Original Complainant) has preferred this appeal to grant leave to appeal as provided under Sec. 378 (4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ("the Code" for short) inter alia challenging the judgment and order of acquittal in favour of the respondent No.2 - original accused No.4.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are as under:

(3.) Learned advocate Mr. Krunal G. Patel for the appellant has submitted that the role of original accused No.4 is clearly established as he was come with all the accused persons and it can be inferred from the deposition of office assistant-Maheshbhai Chauhan, who is examined at Exh.82 that respondent No.2 (original accused No.4 ) had come with all these accused and was standing outside the office premises with an intention to watch the outside activities and if anyone would come inside the premise then he can warn all accused persons or he can retain that person from entering into the premises. That can be inferred as he was just standing outside the office premises. Moreover, the CCTV footage is also establishing his presence at the outside the office premises. Thereafter, when the trial Court has convicted accused Nos.1 and 3 in the trial, then there is no reason for the trial Court to take different view by acquitting the accused No.4, who is also part of the premier conspiracy and has also sharing common intention. Therefore, he prayed that the impugned judgment and order passed by the trial Court, of acquitting the accused No.4, is erroneous and illegal, which is required to be interfered with by exercising the powers under Sec. 378(4) or Sec. 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.