STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. RAJA RAYSHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present appeal, under section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is directed against the judgement and order dated 15.06.2004 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 6, Jamnagar in Sessions Case No. 54 of 1996 whereby the respondent original accused no. 3 has been acquitted of the charges leveled against him.

(2.) THE brief facts of the prosecution case, which is based on the complaint filed by one Rambhai Devshibhai resident of Modpar that on 03.01.1996 as the construction work of his brother's house was in progress, he went to stay there. On 04.1.1996, at about 05.30 pm when the complainant was returning and reached the shop of one Bharat Lohana he found the original accused no. 1 -Gova Ala, original accused no. 5 Rama Gova, original accused no. 6 Kara Gova and other three persons inflicting blows on his brother Dharmendra and his relative Lagdhir with weapons like pipe, knife and stick. The complainant therefore shouted for help and tried to save his brother and relative but original accused no. 1 inflicted two pipe blows on the forehead of the complainant and therefore the complainant fell down on the ground. Thereafter, all the accused started beating Dharmendra and Lagdhir. It is the prosecution case that original accused no. 6 was armed with a knife, original accused no. 1 was armed with pipe and original accused no. 5 was armed with stick whereas other three persons were having sticks and pipes in their hands. The accused left the place of offence and then another brother of Dharmendra - Meraman and one Rashmin came to the place of incident and took the injured persons to Irvin Hospital, Jamnagar where the doctor declared Dharmendra brought dead. Lagdhir was admitted and treated in the hospital. It is the prosecution case that the motive of the incident was that the nephew of the complainant i.e. Dhanabhai and original accused no. 4 Jiva Gova had contested election to the Taluka Panchayat wherein accused no. 4 lost to Dhanabhai and therefore in retaliation the accused persons assaulted the complainant and his brother as well as relative.

(3.) MS . CM Shah, learned APP appearing for the appellant - State has submitted that the trial court committed an error in releasing the respondent -accused. It was contended by Ms. Shah that the judgement 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.