1.0 The present Revision Application under section 397 read with 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is directed against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 15.10.2004 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 4th Fast Track Court, Chhota Udepur in Sessions Case No.18 of 2000, whereby the accused have been acquitted from the charges leveled against them. 2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are as under:
2.1 On 8.1.2000, the applicant with other persons including Ramsingbhai had gone to Chhota Udepur in a tractor. At that time, at about 10:00 a.m., the respondent Nos.2 to 7 attacked on Ramsing, Sarpanch, with deadly weapons. The respondent Nos.2 to 7 by constituting unlawful assembly attacked Ramsingbhai with a common intention to kill him and said Ramsingbhai died. The respondent Nos.2 to 7 – accused persons ran away from the place of the offence. Therefore, the complaint was lodged for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 120B, 147, 148, 149 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 25(1) (aa) of the Arms Act read with Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act.
2.2 Thereafter, necessary investigation was carried out and statements of several witnesses were recorded. The trial was initiated against the respondents.
2.3 To prove the case against the present accused, the prosecution has examined, in all 20 witnesses and also produced several documentary evidence.
2.4 At the end of trial, after recording the statement of the accused under section 313 of Cr.P.C., and hearing arguments on behalf of prosecution and the defence, the learned Sessions Judge acquitted the respondents of all the charges leveled against them by judgment and order dated 15.10.2004.
2.5 Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment and order passed by the Sessions Court the applicant has preferred the present Revision.
3.0 It was contended by learned advocate Mr. Thakkar that the judgment 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 respondents. Learned advocate has also taken this court through the oral as well as the entire documentary evidence. He drew attention to the P.M. Note, more particularly column No.17 at Exhibit 52 and submitted that even the circumstantial evidences are corroborated with the fact and circumstances of the case, but the learned Sessions Judge failed to appreciate and wrongly acquitted the accused persons. He read the discovery panchnama at Exhibit 33. He fairly admitted that the State has not challenged the order of acquittal by way of Appeal. He submitted that present Revision Application may be allowed by quashing and setting aside the order of the learned Sessions Judge.
4.0 As against this, learned advocate Ms. Medha Pandya for the respondent Nos.2 to 7 – accused persons, submitted that the learned Sessions Judge has rightly passed the order after considering the evidence on record. Even the discovery made by the Investigating agency is not proved. Learned Sessions Judge considered the crossexamination of the witnesses. She submitted that this Revision is required to be dismissed.
5.0 Heard learned APP Mr. Jani for the State.
6.0 I have gone through the judgment and order passed by the Sessions Court. I have also perused the oral as well as documentary evidence led by the lower court and also considered the submissions made by learned advocates for the parties. The lower court has clearly recorded finding that the witnesses from the prosecution at Exhibit 14, 23, 24 and 53 are doubtful about the scene of offence. They are not corroborating with each other. He also observed that the place of the complaint lodged, is not explained properly by the complainant. The presence of witnesses at the scene of offence is doubtful. Even the documentary evidence produced on record are doubtful. Thus, from the evidence itself it is established that the prosecution has not proved its case beyond reasonable doubt.
7.0 In the above view of the matter, I am of the considered opinion that the trial court was completely justified in acquitting the respondents of the charges leveled against them.
8.0 I find that the findings recorded by the trial court are absolutely just and proper and in recording the said findings, no illegality or infirmity has been committed by it.
9.0 I am, therefore, in complete agreement with the findings, ultimate conclusion and the resultant order of acquittal recorded by the court below and hence I find no reasons to interfere with the same. Hence the Revision Application is hereby dismissed. Record and proceedings to be sent back to trial Court, forthwith.
ynvyas (Z.K. SAIYED, J.)