CR.A/374/1986 1/4 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 374 of 1986 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BHAGWATI PRASAD HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.R.BRAHMBHATT ===================================================== ==== 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? NO 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? NO 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? NO 4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ? NO 5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ? NO ========================================================= STATE OF GUJARAT - Appellant(s) Versus THAKERDA SADAJI M & 1 - Opponent(s) ========================================================= Appearance : PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for Appellant(s) : 1, MS SADHANA SAGAR for Opponent(s) : 1 - 2. ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BHAGWATI PRASAD and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.R.BRAHMBHATT Date : 14/07/2008 CR.A/374/1986 2/4 JUDGMENT ORAL JUDGMENT (Per : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BHAGWATI PRASAD) This is an appeal filed against the acquittal award passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Mehsana, on 3.1.1986 in Sessions Case No. 104 of 1985. 2. The facts of the case are a complaint came to be lodged on 29.11.1984 stating inter alia that at 14.30 hours both the accused have come to the field of Yusufbhai and allowed the cattle to enter into the field of Yusufbhai and in that connection Yusufbhai scolded them. At that time Kantaji Mansinghji i.e. accused No. 2 who was standing outside the field, came inside the field and started beating Yusufbhai and gave him stick blows. At that time Sadaji i.e. accused No. 1 also came inside the fields and started beating Yusufbhai. Ultimately, Yusufbhai succumbed to the injuries and the present respondents were subjected to arrest and booked to criminal trial. Since after framing of the charge, they did not plead guilt, trial was conducted. After considering the entire evidence, the learned trial Judge was pleased to acquit the respondents. Being aggrieved by the said order of acquittal, the State has preferred this appeal. 3. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has contended that the prosecution has examined Kasambhai PW-1 at Exh. 11, Ganibhai Noor Mohammed PW-2 at Exh. 13, Rasoolbhai PW-4 at Exh. 16 and Aminaben PW-5 at Exh. 18, as eye witnesses. All these witnesses have consistently stated in their deposition that present respondents have given multiple CR.A/374/1986 3/4 JUDGMENT stick blows to Yusufbhai and perusing the deposition of Dr. Surendra Joitabhai Patel, Medical Officer, Siddhpur Municipal Hospital and the post-mortem report, injuries which are found to be on the body of the deceased Yusufbhai, correspond the version of eye witnesses and, therefore, the learned Sessions Judge ought not to have acquitted the respondent accused. 4. We have gone through the judgement delivered by the learned Sessions Judge. He has considered the deposition of the witnesses not as interested witnesses. The learned Judge was conscious of the fact that the evidence of the interested witnesses cannot be discarded only on the ground that they are interested witnesses. He was also conscious of the fact that the version of the interested witnesses is found trustworthy and the same can be relied upon. 5. The learned Judge clearly found that none of the witnesses were in fact present at the scene of offence, their version do not support inter se. So far as Ganibhai is concerned, he clearly stated in his deposition that when he reached at the scene of offence, Yusufbhai was already killed. He stated that Yusufbhai was lying in dead condition. In his examination-in-chief similar version of the witnesses also does not stand to the scrutiny inasmuch as Rasoolbhai gave shouts which had not been heard by any of the witnesses. 6. The learned Judge also found that there was Tuvar Crop standing in the fields of Yusufbhai and witnesses had come all the way from more than a distance of an acre and the entire incidence occurred in a very short span of 3 minuts. In these circumstances the evidence of witnesses were found to CR.A/374/1986 4/4 JUDGMENT be not trustworthy. Perusing the version of Aminaben, she stated in her deposition that except her, no other person was there in the field and nobody came to the field and after the incident she left for home. In her cross-examination also she did not stand to the scrutiny and therefore, the learned Judge has rightly not believed the same. 7. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. Considering the evidence available on record, we are of the opinion that the finding recorded by the learned trial Judge in acquitting the accused does not require any interference. There is no substance in this appeal. Hence the same is dismissed. Bail bond stands cancelled. (BHAGWATI PRASAD, J) (S.R. BRAHMBHATT, J) (pkn)