CR.A/133519/1986 1/5 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1335 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 BHASKERBHAI CHHANABHAI MACHHI & 3 - Opponent(s) ========================================================= Appearance : Mr. Maulik Nanavati, APP, for Appellant(s) : 1, Ms. Chetna M. Shah for (HL PATEL, Advocates) for Opponent(s) : 1 - 4. ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BHAGWATI PRASAD and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.R.BRAHMBHATT Date : 10/07/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT (Per : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BHAGWATI PRASAD) CR.A/133519/1986 2/5 JUDGMENT The present appeal has been filed by the State of Gujarat against the judgment and order dated 16.7.1986 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Navsari, District Valsad in Sessions Case No. 67 of 1985. By the said judgement the learned trial Judge has acquitted the accused of the charges levelled against them. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that Ambalal Textile is a factory in village Kathalwadi, Taluka Umargaon, District Valsad. Complainant Vinodkumar Baldevdas Nayak is the Manager and Ambalal Jivaji Shah is the owner of the said factory. All the four accused are the workers of the said factory. That, on the night of 13.08.1985, one Dinesh Durlabhbhai Macchi workman had slept in the third shift and he was given a kick by Manager Vinodkumar at around 4.00 a.m. Said workman Dinesh informed the said fact to the accused in the morning. 3. That, on 14.08.1985, at about 5.00 p.m., the accused had met Manager Vinodkumar and asked him as to why he had assaulted Dinesh Durlabh Macchi and thereafter, alleged incident taken place. As per the prosecution story, accused Jagdish who had stick in his hand, gave blow on the waist of complainant Vinodkumar. That, while complainant's maternal uncle and wife had tried to intervene, accused Jagdish had given a stick blow on the head of complainant's maternal uncle and accused Babu had given stick blows to his wife and maternal uncle and accused Bhaskar Chhana and Kishan Sanvar had given fist and kick blows to all of them. That, meanwhile, the other workmen had come there and CR.A/133519/1986 3/5 JUDGMENT separated them. 4. That complainant's maternal uncle had received bleeding injury on the head and become unconscious. He was, therefore, taken to Sanjan Government Hospital for treatment and, thereafter, the complainant filed his complaint at Sanjan outpost. The injured was referred to the Referral Hospital at Hariya where injured Rameshbhai died on the next day morning at about 7.00 a.m. 5. The defence of the accused is workman Dinesh Durlabhbhai Macchi had informed that in the morning of 14.8.1985, he had gone to sleep after informing the watchman as his health was not good. However, he was assaulted by the Manager (complainant) to Dinesh at about 4.00 a.m. That the accused had said to Dinesh Macchi that they would meet the Manager in this connection, that after completing their work in the first shift, the four accused had seen complainant Vinodkumar in the factory compound. However, the Manager got exited and started abusing them. There was an altercation between them and after hearing then alteration the complainant's wife and other family members started pelting big stones and brickbats which were lying in the compound. As a result of the stone throwing accused Bhaskar Chhana received injury on his left knee. And accused Kishan Sanvar and other two workmen namely Ramankutiya and Rameshchandra Babu had received bleeding injuries on their head. All the four injured workmen were removed to Sanjan Primary Health Center for treatment and thereafter, accused Jagdish filed a complaint at Sanjan outpost. Deceased Rameshbhai had also received injury on his head under the CR.A/133519/1986 4/5 JUDGMENT pelting of stones. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and given our thoughtful consideration. The learned trial Judge has found that sequences of offences as stated by the complainant did not feel him the way the incident has occurred. They have withheld the information about the injuries caused on the accused party. The accused has taken a specific defence that the incident occurred due to misbehaviour of the complainant and on this there was pelting of stones from both the sides. The complainant had earlier taken tussle and in retaliation to that the labourers got enraged. 7. In the story of prosecution the place of incident was the house of the complainant whereas in the defence evidence it was around 15 to 40 feet away from the house of the complainant. The complainant has come down and have joined the quarrel with the accused party which is not the case of the prosecution. The injured deceased was never in contention. The dispute was the first informant. He had only spoken in favour of the complainant. There was no previous enmity. The accused was not known to the deceased. There is contusive lacerated wound on his head which has resulted into death of Rameshbhai Bhojak. There is minor bruises on the person of the deceased. Such kind of injuries are possible by throwing of stones which took place between the parties. Therefore, the trial Court has granted benefit of doubt to the accused. In view of the fact that the prosecution has not come up with correct version of the prosecution story and has changed materially so much that the place of occurrence has been altered. We are, therefore, of the considered opinion that the findings recorded CR.A/133519/1986 5/5 JUDGMENT by the learned trial Judge do not call interference. Hence we dismiss the appeal. (BHAGWATI PRASAD, J) (S.R. BRAHMBHATT, J) (pkn)