1. The present appellants has preferred this Appeal under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 3.1.1998 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Valsad at Navsari in Sessions Case No.106 of 1992, whereby the learned Sessions Judge convicted and sentenced the appellant No.1 for a period of six months R.I. and fine of Rs.500/, in default, to undergo further 15 days S.I. for the offence punishable under Section 427 of the Indian Penal Code. He also convicted for the offence punishable under Section 126(1)(A) of the Indian Railways Act, to suffer R.I. for a period of 40 months. The appellant No.2 was ordered to undergo six months R.I. and fine of Rs.500/, in default, to further undergo for a period of 15 days S.I. for the offence punishable under Section 427 of the Indian Penal Code. He also convicted for the offence punishable under Section 126(1)A) of the Indian Railways Act, to suffer S.I. for 40 months. However, learned Sessions Judge ordered both the accused to suffer all sentences concurrently.
2. As per the case of the prosecution, on 21.1.1992, the train which was proceeding from Mumbai Central to Ahmedabad, stopped at Atul Railway Station, where the accused persons pelted stones on the compartment of guard and thereby damage was caused to the train. Therefore, the complaint was lodged under Section 427 of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 152, 147 and 162 of the Indian Railways Act, against the accused persons.
3. Thereafter, the statements of the witnesses were recorded, panchnama was drawn and accused were arrested and also chargesheet was filed. Thereafter, Sessions Case No.106 of 1992 was tried before the learned Sessions Judge.
4. To prove the case against the appellants, the prosecution has produced documentary evidence and also examined in all 8 witnesses before the Sessions Court.
5. Thereafter, after examining the witnesses, further statement of the appellants – accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was recorded in which the appellants – accused have denied the case of the prosecution.
6. After considering the oral as well as documentary evidence and after hearing the parties, learned Sessions Judge vide judgment and order dated 3.1.1998 held the appellants – accused guilty to the charge levelled against them and sentenced as stated above, which is impugned in this Appeal.
7. During the pendency of the Appeal, the appellant No.2 – Mohanbhai Gopalbhai Patel has expired. Therefore, the appeal is abated against the appellant No.2.
8. Learned advocate Mr. R.A. Shah appearing on behalf of the appellants submitted that the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Sessions Judge is unjust and improper and against the material produced on the record. To substantiate his submissions, learned advocate submitted in relation to the evidence of P.W.7 Omprakash Bhatt, who was serving as a Guard in Railway, that his version regarding accused were pelting stones, is not justified and is not corroborated by any other evidence or witnesses. He also submitted that the accused were wrongly involved in the offence and the charge framed against the appellants are vague and misleading. He also submitted that during the pendency of this Appeal, the appellant No.2 has expired. On the ground of poor financial condition of appellant No.1 and his wife being handicapped, he prayed to allow this Appeal quashing and setting aside the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Sessions Judge.
9. The learned APP Mr. Jani for the State has strongly opposed the submissions made by the learned advocate for the appellant. It has been contended by learned APP that the judgment and order of the Sessions Court is just and proper and as per the provisions of law; the Sessions Court has 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 appellant. From the oral evidence of P.W.7 Omprakash, prima facie the presence of the appellants on the spot appears to be proved. The appellants had not made any attempt to deny about their role before the trial Court during course of trial. Therefore, he prayed to dismiss the Appeal by confirming the judgment and order of the conviction and sentence passed by the learned Sessions Judge.
10. I have perused the judgment and order and reasons given by the learned trial Judge also. I have perused the record of the case and also considered the submissions made by the learned advocates for the parties. After considering the evidence, it appears that learned Sessions Judge has rightly held the appellants guilty for the offences alleged against them and sentenced them and the appellants were ordered to undergo sentence as stated above. Three witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution. The group of 25 to 30 persons pelted the stones upon the railway compartment and the passengers, who were in the compartment, shouted out of fear. In the group of 25 to 30 persons, the accused were very well present and the persons also pelted the stone upon the compartment of the guard and thereby, they broken the glass window of the train. The conduct of the accused placed the life of the passengers in dangerous situation. The active role on the part of the accused is clearly established from the evidence of witnesses examined before the trial Court more particularly, P.W.4 – Mahadevsingh Thakor, I.O. at Exhibit 14, P.W.6 Kashinath Kachre at Exhibit 16 and P.W.7 Omprakash Bhatt at Exhibit 20 and as such identification of the accused out of mob comprising of 2530 persons is proved beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, I am in total agreement with the findings assigned by the learned Sessions Judge.
11. The appeal is abated against the appellant No.2 Mohanbhai Gopalbhai Patel, since he has expired.
The appeal is dismissed against the appellant No.1 – Harishbhai Sukhabhai Patel. The judgment and order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Valsad at Navsari in Sessions Case No.106 of 1992 dated 3.1.1998 is hereby confirmed. The appellant No.1 is on bail and in view of dismissal of appeal, his bail bond is cancelled and he is directed to surrender before the Jail Authority within four weeks from the date of this order, failing which, the concerned Court shall issue non bailable warrant to effect the arrest of the appellant No.1. R & P to be sent back to the trial Court, forthwith.
ynvyas (Z.K.SAIYED,J.)