Gujarat High Court
Jivanbhai Khushalbhai Ahir vs The State Of Gujarat on 20 March, 2024
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/10/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/03/2024
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 10 of 2007
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE S.V. PINTO
==========================================================
1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed
to see the judgment ? YES
2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? YES
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 NO
of India or any order made thereunder ?
==========================================================
JIVANBHAI KHUSHALBHAI AHIR
Versus
THE STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR PRAMODKUMAR C GEHLOT(13266) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MS. VRUNDA SHAH, APP FOR RESPONDENT STATE
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE S.V. PINTO
Date : 20/03/2024
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant under Section 374 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the judgement and order of conviction passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge and Presiding Officer, First Fast Track Court, Valsad, (hereinafter referred to as "the learned Page 1 of 19 Downloaded on : Wed Mar 27 20:31:57 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/10/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/03/2024 undefined Trial Court") in Sessions Case No. 78 of 2006 on 14.12.2006, whereby, the learned Trial Court has convicted the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code and the appellant has been sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 25,000/- and in default, to undergo further simple imprisonment for six months.
The parties are referred to as they stood in the original case for the sake of convenience, clarity and brevity.
2. The brief facts that emerge from the record of the case are as under:
2.1 That on 11.06.2005, at around 06.30 pm, the accused went into the house of Lallubhai Budhabhai Ahir in village Sarigam and hit Lallubhai Budhabhai Ahir on the back side of the head and on the neck and caused him grievous injury. That Jashiben Lallubhai Ahir - wife of Lallubhai Budhabhai Ahir filed a complaint on 18.06.2005 in the Umargam Police Station under Sections 323, 504, 325 and 506(2) of Indian Penal Code which was registered as I C.R. No. 153/2005 and after due investigation a charge-sheet case was filed before the Court of Ld. Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Umargam on 22.12.2005 which was registered as Criminal Case No. 1180/2005. That Lallubhai Budhabhai Ahir expired on 06.07.2005 and the complainant filed Special Criminal Application No. Page 2 of 19 Downloaded on : Wed Mar 27 20:31:57 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/10/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/03/2024 undefined 1647/2005 before this Court and as per the order dated 12.12.2005, the Investigating Officer filed a supplementary charge-sheet before the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Umargam under Sections 302, 323, 325, 504 and 506(2) of the Indian Penal Code which came to be registered as Criminal Case No. 222/2006. That both the charge-sheets were committed to the Court of Sessions, Valsad as the charge-sheets were of the same offence and the offence was triable exclusively by the Court of Sessions and Criminal Case No. 1180/2005 under Section 323, 325, 504 and 506(2) of Indian Penal Code came to be registered as Sessions Case No. 79/2006 and Criminal Case No. 222/2006 under Section 302, 323, 325, 504 and 506(2) of Indian Penal Code came to be registered as Sessions Case No. 78/2006. That as the facts in both the cases were same and were arising out of the same incident, the learned Trial Court consolidated the charge-sheets and a charge was framed against the accused at Exh. 1 and the statement of the accused was recorded at Exh. 2, wherein, the accused denied all the contents of the charge and the evidence of the prosecution was taken on record. The prosecution has examined 13 witnesses and produced 19 documentary evidences to bring home the charge against the accused and after the closing pursis at Exh. 42 was submitted by the learned APP, the further statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was recorded. That after the arguments of the learned APP and Page 3 of 19 Downloaded on : Wed Mar 27 20:31:57 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/10/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/03/2024 undefined learned advocate for the accused were heard, the learned Trial Court was pleased to acquit the accused from the offence punishable under Section 302, 323, 504 and 506(2) of Indian Penal Code under Section 235(1) of Code of Criminal Procedure and convicted the accused under Section 235(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure for the offence punishable under Section 325 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced the accused to two years simple imprisonment and fine of Rs. 25,000/- and in default, further simple imprisonment for a period of six months. That the learned Trial Court also directed that an amount of Rs. 20,000/- be paid to the legal heirs of deceased Lallubhai Kushalbhai Ahir from the amount of fine of Rs. 25,000/- paid by the accused under Section 357 of Code of Criminal Procedure.
3. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said judgement and order, the accused has filed the present appeal mainly stating that as per the case of the prosecution, the accused had caused injury on the back of the head and the neck portion of Lallubhai Budhabhai Ahir on 11.06.2005 at about 18.30 hours and the said Lallubhai Budhabhai Ahir died on 06.07.2005. That there is no nexus between the injury caused by fist and hand and the learned Trial Court has not appreciated the entire evidence in proper perspective. That there are huge lacunas in the evidence of the prosecution and the evidence is not sufficient to bring home the guilt of the accused. The Page 4 of 19 Downloaded on : Wed Mar 27 20:31:57 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/10/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/03/2024 undefined injuries that were caused by the accused, as per the case of the prosecution, are simple in nature and are not caused by any kind of weapon, as allegedly, the same have been caused by fists and kicks. That the Medical Officer who has examined the injured at the first point in time has stated that the injuries were simple in nature. That there was no intention or motive of the accused and the learned Trial Court has not considered all these aspects in proper perspective. That the incident, as per the case of prosecution, had taken place on the Otta of the house of the complainant and there are other houses nearby but no statement of independent witnesses have been recorded by the police and no independent witnesses have been examined by the prosecution. That the prosecution has not been able to prove the direct nexus between the injuries caused to the deceased and his death and by no stretch of imagination, can it be said that the accused had caused any grievous injuries by fists to bring home the guilt under Section 325 of Indian Penal Code. That the judgement and order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Trial Court is illegal and erroneous and the same is required to be set aside and the accused must be acquitted of the said offence.
4. Heard learned advocate Mr. Pramodkumar C. Gehlot for the appellant and learned APP Ms. Vrunda Shah for the respondent State.
Page 5 of 19 Downloaded on : Wed Mar 27 20:31:57 IST 2024NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/10/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/03/2024 undefined
5. Learned advocate Mr. Pramodkumar C. Gehlot for the appellant has taken this Court through the entire evidence produced by the prosecution and has submitted that the accused has not committed any offence and the prosecution has not produced any cogent and convincing evidence on record which would prove that the accused has in fact intended to cause death of the deceased Lallubhai Budhabhai Ahir by fists. That there are many lacunas in the case of the prosecution and even though, the incident has occurred on 11.06.2005 at 06.30 pm, the injured was taken to the hospital only at 09.20 pm and the complaint has been filed on 18.06.2005 after a delay of seven days and the delay in filing the complaint has not been explained by the complainant. Moreover, it has also come on record that on 11.06.2005, a complaint was filed against four persons by Jashiben Lallubhai Ahir mainly stating that they had beaten the deceased with fists and thereafter, on 18.06.2005, for the same incident, the complaint only against the present accused has been filed. There is no clarification whatsoever as to why the others were not named in the complaint on 18.06.2005 and no independent eye witnesses have been examined by the prosecution. That the nexus between the injury caused by the accused with his fists and kicks and the death has not been proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt and the impugned judgement and order of conviction is illegal and suffers from perversity and the same must be quashed and set aside.
Page 6 of 19 Downloaded on : Wed Mar 27 20:31:57 IST 2024NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/10/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/03/2024 undefined
6. Learned APP Ms. Vrunda Shah for the State has submitted that the learned Trial Court has appreciated all the evidences in its proper perspective and there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgement and order. That it is proved by the prosecution that the accused had caused grievous hurt to the injured who later on succumbed to his injuries and the learned Trial Court has rightly convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 325 of Indian Penal Code. That no order of interference is required and the appeal of the appellant must be dismissed.
7. Before dissecting the evidences adduced by the prosecution on record before the learned Trial Court, it is essential to reiterate the cardinal principles of Criminal Jurisprudence as settled by the Hon'ble Apex Court in catena of decisions and the first cardinal principle is that the prosecution is required to prove their case beyond reasonable doubts and the prosecution cannot claim any benefit of the weaknesses of the defence. The second cardinal principle is that in a criminal trial, the accused is presumed to be innocent unless he is proved guilty beyond reasonable doubts from the evidence of the prosecution and the third cardinal principle is that the burden of onus of proof never shifts from the prosecution.
8. In a Criminal Appeal, it is necessary to dissect and Page 7 of 19 Downloaded on : Wed Mar 27 20:31:57 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/10/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/03/2024 undefined appreciate the oral and documentary evidences produced by the prosecution and to bring the home the charge against the accused, the prosecution has examined PW1 - Dr. Manojkumar Kalpeshwarprasad Yadav at Exh. 5 and this witness has stated that on 11.06.2005, while he was working as a Medical Officer in the Community Health Centre at Bhilad, at 09.20 pm, Lallubhai Budhabhai Ahir aged 50 years residing at Sarigam Bhandarvada was brought for treatment by Dhansukhbhai Lallubhai Ahir. That the patient was conscious and he himself had given the history, wherein, he has stated that Jivanbhai Khushalbhai Ahir beat him with fists and kicks at 06.30 pm on 11.06.2005. On local examination, the following injuries were found: 1) Generalized body ache. 2) Tenderness on both the hands. 3) Cracking sound and tenderness on the left knee joint on pressure. 4) A reddish abrasion of 4 cm on the forehead 5) Back ache and difficulty in sitting and standing.
That the patient was referred to a surgeon and was advised, x-ray of spine AP and on advise of the Surgeon, the patient was referred to the Orthopedic Surgeon, Civil Hospital, Valsad for further management. The witness has produced the medical certificate at Exh. 6 and the refer chit of Civil Hospital, Valsad at Exh. 7. During the cross- examination, the witness has stated that the patient was referred for further treatment to the Orthopedic Surgeon but what has happened thereafter, is not known to him. That Page 8 of 19 Downloaded on : Wed Mar 27 20:31:57 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/10/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/03/2024 undefined there were no external injuries on the body parts where the patient had complained of pain and the pain could be imaginary. That if there was a fracture, it could be palpable and if there was a fracture, the pain would be on the external part also. That the injuries of the patient were simple and if a person is hit with the fists and legs, no dangerous injuries could be caused. That the patient was conscious and he had not mentioned where the injury was caused by the hands and legs of the assailant 8.1 The prosecution has examined PW2 -Dr. Mahendrabhai Gawahbhai Damor at Exh. 9 and the witness is the Civil Surgeon of Civil Hospital, Valsad. The witness has stated that on 03.10.2005, he had received the Postmortem Report and a letter from the Additional District Magistrate, Valsad seeking an opinion about the cause of death of deceased Lallubhai Budhabhai Ahir and the witness has produced the letter of Additional District Magistrate at Exh. 10. That the postmortem was done on 06.07.2005 by Dr. Jitendra M. Patel and Dr. Suresh Kain and he had given the opinion on 09.12.2005 to the Additional District Magistrate, Valsad. As per his opinion, due to the injury on the neck and fracture of spine, the strength of lower part of the body was lost and had caused weakness in the body and loss of bowel control and had caused death. The opinion is produced at Exh. 11. During the cross-examination, the witness has stated that he had Page 9 of 19 Downloaded on : Wed Mar 27 20:31:57 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/10/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/03/2024 undefined not inquired as to whether the patient had taken treatment from any Orthopedic Surgeon and no certificate of any Orthopedic Surgeon was produced before him. That he had merely given the opinion on the basis of the postmortem report. That the cause of death was kept pending by the doctors who have conducted the postmortem for the Histopathological Report and the cause of death could be said only by the doctors who have conducted the postmortem.
8.2 The prosecution has examined PW3 - Dr. Kiran Jayendralal Vasavda at Exh. 15 and this witness has stated that on 15.06.2005, while he was working in Adarsh Hospital, Lallubhai Budhabhai Ahir was admitted to the hospital and he had examined him on 15.06.2005. That he had paralysis in both the hands and legs and there was a mark of injury on the neck part. That on 17.06.2005, when he was examined, the patient had fever and he found that the spinal cord was either pressed or cut. That he had advised the patient to undergo MRI but as the patient did not have money, he was released from the hospital. The witness has produced the certificate at Exh. 16. During the cross-examination, the witness has admitted that the treatment would depend on the MRI Report and it was not apparent as to whether the spinal cord had shifted. That the injury on the neck could be caused by the neck pushing back or pushing front or by pressure on the neck.
Page 10 of 19 Downloaded on : Wed Mar 27 20:31:57 IST 2024NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/10/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/03/2024 undefined 8.3 The prosecution has examined PW4 - Dhansukhbhai Lallubhai Ahir at Exh. 17 and this witness is the son of deceased Lallubhai Budhabhai Ahir. The witness has stated that at the time of incident, he was at home and his father and mother were quarrelling about the food. That at that time, the accused came and beat his father with fists and went away. That he went Sarigam Outpost to file the complaint and his father was at home. That the police has informed him to take his father to the hospital and he had taken his father to CHC, Bhilad for treatment where he was treated for three days. That the doctor has advised that he was injured in the spine and to take him to other hospital so he had taken his father to doctor house where he was treated for ten days. That his father was advised MRI and was thereafter, referred to Civil Hospital, Surat but they did not take him to Civil Hospital, Surat and brought him home from doctor house. That his father passed away after around ten days and his mother had filed the complaint. During the cross-examination, the witness has stated that his statement was recorded by the police on 19.06.2005 and thereafter, he does not remember as to whether his statement was recorded on 06.07.2005. That his brother Navin had gone with his mother to file the complaint.
8.4 The prosecution has examined PW5 - Dr. Sureshkumar Shantuprasad Kain at Exh. 18 and this witness is the witness who has conducted the postmortem Page 11 of 19 Downloaded on : Wed Mar 27 20:31:57 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/10/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/03/2024 undefined on the dead body of the deceased Lallubhai Budhabhai Ahir. The witness has produced the postmortem note at Exh. 19 and the cause of death certificate at Exh. 20. The witness has done the postmortem along with Dr. Jitendra M. Patel on 06.07.2005 between 02.00 pm and 03.15 pm and as per the postmortem note produced at Exh. 19, column no. 17 show the following injuries:
1) Bed Sore 5" x 3" size with foul smell. Surface light green colour with irregular edge over sacrum.
2) Bed Sore 2½" x 2½" size over each buttock with hard blackened skin without specific smell or discharge due to pasture complication during treatment period.
The cause of death in the postmortem report was kept pending till the Histopathological Report was received and in Exh. 20 which is the cause of death certificate, the probable cause of death was pending till Histopathological Report was received. Thereafter, the final opinion was given at Exh. 21 which shows the cause of death as "Cardiovascular failure as a result of Septicemia."
8.5 The prosecution has examined PW6 - Jashiben Lallubhai Ahir at Exh. 26 and this witness is the wife of deceased Lallubhai Budhabhai Ahir and the complainant in the case. The witness has stated that on 11.06.2005, at Page 12 of 19 Downloaded on : Wed Mar 27 20:31:57 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/10/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/03/2024 undefined around 06.00 pm, her husband had come back home with the goats and was quarrelling with her and at that time, the accused came and hit her husband with fists. That her husband did not get up from the bed thereafter and he had problems in urination. That he was taken to CHC, Bhilad where he was treated for three days and thereafter, to Doctor house at Valsad, where an x-ray was done and the doctor has stated that he had sustained a fracture on his spine. That the doctor at Valsad had told them to take him for further treatment to Surat but they did not take him and he thereafter, expired on the 6th or 7th. The witness has produced the complaint at Exh. 27. During the cross- examination, the complainant has stated that the incident has occurred on 11.06.2005 and the complaint is filed on 18.06.2005 at 18.00 hours at Sarigam Outpost. That there is no reason for any delay mentioned in the complaint and the witness has denied that NC Case No. 43/2005 was given in Umargam Police Station against the accused, his wife Jashiben, his daughter Champak and Deviben.
8.6 The prosecution has examined PW7 - Navinbhai Lallubhai Ahir at Exh. 28 and this witness is the son of the complainant and the deceased and he has narrated the facts as per the complainant. During the cross-examination, the witness has stated that on the date of the incident, they had gone to file a complaint at Sarigam Outpost and the complaint was filed by his mother. That the complaint was Page 13 of 19 Downloaded on : Wed Mar 27 20:31:57 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/10/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/03/2024 undefined against four persons and once again a complaint was filed on 18.06.2005. That in the complaint on 11.06.2005, four persons were named but in the complaint on 18.06.2005, only one person was named. That he was not present at the time of the incident.
8.7 The prosecution has examined PW8 - Ashokbhai Govanbhai Ahir at Exh. 29 and this witness is the panch witness who has produced the panchnama of the place of offence that was drawn up on 19.06.2005 and produced at Exh. 30. The witness has supported the case of the prosecution. The prosecution has produced the evidence of PW9 - ASI Madhukar Dhondu at Exh. 31 and this witness is the PSO who has registered the offence on 18.06.2005.
8.8 The prosecution has examined PW10 - Babubhai Meherbanbhai Patel at Exh. 33 and this witness has stated that on 25.06.2005, he had got a yadi to record the dying declaration of Lallubhai Budhabhai Ahir and he had gone to CHC, Bhilad where Lallubhai Budhabhai Ahir was admitted. That he had introduced himself and on inquiry, the patient had narrated his name and after removing everyone from the room, had recorded the dying declaration of Lallubhai Budhabhai Ahir, wherein, he did not state as to who has injured him. That the injured was conscious and could answer his questions but did not name anyone. That he had recorded the dying declaration and has taken the thumb Page 14 of 19 Downloaded on : Wed Mar 27 20:31:57 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/10/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/03/2024 undefined impression of Lallubhai Budhabhai Ahir and has produced the yadi at Exh. 34 and the dying declaration at Exh. 35.
8.9 The prosecution has examined PW 11 - Manjuben Bipinbhai Ahir at Exh. 36 and this witness is the neighbor and the eye witness to the incident. She has stated that she has seen the accused beat Lallubhai with his fists and during the cross-examination, this witness has stated that at the time of the incident there were about 10 to 12 persons and she had gone to Bhilad Hospital and has spoken to Lallubhai Budhabhai also.
8.10 The prosecution has examined PW12 - Kantibhai Maganbhai Patel at Exh. 37 and this witness has stated that while he was working as an ASI on 11.06.2005 at Sarigam Outpost, the complainant Jasiben Lallubhai Ahir came to the Outpost and her complaint was taken. Thereafter, the complaint was taken once again on 18.06.2005 which is produced at Exh. 27 and he had gone and drawn the panchnama of the place of offence which is produced at Exh. 30. During the cross-examination, the witness has admitted that the complaint that was recorded on 18.06.2005 was regarding the incident that had taken place on 11.06.2005 and the NC complaint that was taken on 11.06.2005 was produced, wherein, the statement of Lallubhai Budhabhai Ahir was recorded and the presence of four persons was recorded. That a Chapter Case was Page 15 of 19 Downloaded on : Wed Mar 27 20:31:57 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/10/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/03/2024 undefined registered on the basis of NC complaint. The NC complaint is produced at Exh. 38. That he had written a yadi to record the dying declaration of the deceased.
8.11 The prosecution has examined PW 13 - Laljibhai Bhayabhai Monpara at Exh. 39 and this witness is the Investigating Officer who has filed the charge-sheet against the accused.
9. On appreciating the entire evidence of the prosecution, it appears that the incident had occurred on 11.06.2005 at 06.30 pm and Lallubhai Budhabhai Ahir was taken to CHC, Bhilad on the same day at 09.00 pm. That he had taken treatment from 11.06.2005 to 14.06.2005 where his dying declaration was recorded by PW10 - Babubhai Meherban Patel and the dying declaration is produced at Exh. 35. That on 11.06.2005, PW6 - Jashiben Lallubhai Ahir went to Sarigam Outpost and filed a complaint against four persons and a Chapter Case was filed and the main allegations were that Lallubhai Budhabhai Ahir was beaten with fists. That Lallubhai Budhabhai Ahir was referred to Civil Hospital, Valsad by the refer chit produced at Exh. 7 but instead, he was taken to Adarsh Hospital on 14.06.2005. That in the injury certificate produced at Ex. 6, no visible injury on the neck of the injured is mentioned and there was no specific complaint about pain in the neck region by the injured before the Medical Officer of CHC, Bhilad. The injury Page 16 of 19 Downloaded on : Wed Mar 27 20:31:57 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/10/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/03/2024 undefined certificate of the Adarsh Hospital is not brought on record and the certificate produced at Exh. 16, merely certifies that Lallubhai Budhabhai Ahir was admitted on 14.06.2005 in the hospital for treatment of fracture of spine - paralysis in both the upper and lower limbs. There is no evidence on record to show that there was any external injury in the spine, on the neck region or any x-ray or injury certificate to corroborate this say of the prosecution. The postmortem note produced at Exh. 19 shows the fracture over lower third of neck around C4 to C6 but the cause of death is mentioned as cardiovascular failure as a result of Septicemia. In the evidence of prosecution, the incident has occurred on 11.06.2005 and on 11.06.2005, the complaint against four persons has been given for which a Chapter Case has been registered, whereas, on 18.06.2005, the First Information Report has been filed only against the accused. There is no explanation for the delay in filing the FIR and as per the deposition of PW11 - Manjuben Bipinbhai, there were a number of eye witnesses but no independent witnesses have been examined except Manjuben Bipinbhai. That the dying declaration of the deceased does not name the accused as the persons who has assaulted him and the learned Trial Court has rightly appreciated the evidence and acquitted the accused for the offence punishable under Sections 302, 323, 504 and 506 of Indian Penal Code. That if the evidence is properly appreciated, it is proved that the injured was immediately taken to CHC, Bhilad but no injury Page 17 of 19 Downloaded on : Wed Mar 27 20:31:57 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/10/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/03/2024 undefined marks whatsoever were found on the neck region of the deceased and PW1 - Dr. Manojkumar Kalpeshwarprasad Yadav has categorically admitted that the injuries were simple in nature. That all the injuries on the body of Lallubhai Budhabhai Ahir are noted in the injury certificate at Exh. 10. Admittedly, the incident has occurred on 11.06.2005 at 06.30 pm and the injured was taken to the Hospital at 09.20 pm and there is no explanation about the delay in taking the injured to the hospital. That if the injuries were serious in nature and caused by the accused, the injured would have been immediately rushed to the hospital but it appears that the evidence is not properly appreciated by the learned Trial Court and there is also evidence on record that the deceased and his wife were having an altercation at that point of time. That the version of the complainant and her two sons are not believable and there are major contradictions in version of the complainant and the role of the accused is not established in the entire evidence. The prosecution has failed to establish that the accused had caused grievous hurt as the only evidence that is on record is that the accused had given fists blows to the deceased. There is no iota of evidence to suggests that the fist blows were given on the neck and the prosecution has clearly failed to prove that the injuries that were caused on the neck of the deceased were in fact caused by the accused. The learned Trial Court has rightly not found the nexus between the injuries caused by the accused and the Page 18 of 19 Downloaded on : Wed Mar 27 20:31:57 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/10/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/03/2024 undefined death of the deceased and has acquitted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 but the conviction under Section 325 of Indian Penal Code is also not been proved by cogent and convincing evidence by the prosecution. The prosecution has in fact failed to establish the offence charged against the accused and the learned Trial Court has not appreciated the entire evidence in proper perspective and has come to a wrong conclusion and convicted the accused under Section 325 of Indian Penal Code. That there is no cogent, convinicing and reliable evidence to conclude that the accused had committed any offence under Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code and the judgement and order calls for interference and hence, the appeal is allowed. The impugned judgement and order of conviction passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge and Presiding Officer, First Fast Track Court, Valsad, in Sessions Case No. 78 of 2006 on 14.12.2006 is set aside and the accused is acquitted for the offence under Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code.
10. Bail bond stands cancelled. Fine to be refunded to the appellant after due verification. Record and Proceedings be sent back to the learned Trial Court forthwith.
(S. V. PINTO,J) VASIM S. SAIYED Page 19 of 19 Downloaded on : Wed Mar 27 20:31:57 IST 2024