This appeal arises out of a judgment and order rendered by Sessions Court, Veraval in Sessions Case No.50 of 2002 on 04/03/2005 whereunder the respondents, who were the accused before the trial Court came to be acquitted. Being aggrieved by the said acquittal, the State has preferred this appeal. 2. The facts of the case as per the prosecution case in brief are that on 17/06/1999 at about 08:30 p.m., the accused persons (respondent herein) assaulted the first informant – Teja Bogha, who is A-2 in a cross case tried by the trial Court in Sessions Case No.75 of 2001 and others and caused them hurt and grievous hurt after abusing and intimidating them. In support of their case, witnesses have been examined, who are Teja Bogha himself, injured Gangaben and injured – Kanabhai at Exh.8, 11 and 12 respectively. Dr.Sachhidanand has been examined at Exh.14.
3. The trial Court found that the muddamal stick which was brought on record was admitted by Dr.Sachhidanand to be not capable of causing hurt found on person of the victim. It is also found that there was a cross case between the parties. The relations were strained and possibility of false implication also cannot be ruled out. The trial Court has also recorded that the place of incident is far from the place of the complainant site. The Panch Witnesses have turned hostile. Keeping all these aspects in mind and keeping in light the parameter established by various pronouncement in law by Apex Court, we deem it proper not to interfere with the finding of the trial Court. It cannot be said that the trial Court has come to the conclusion which is palpably erroneous and de hors the material on record. We are, therefore, in broad agreement with the trial Court in acquitting the accused persons. The first informant was the main accused in a cross case where he has been convicted. The witnesses other than lady witness, there is Gangaben and Rudiben are also convicted may be for lesser offence and, therefore, the apprehension shown by the trial Court of false implication because of the animosity between the parties is fully justified. The appeal, therefore, must fail and stands dismissed.
Sd/-
(A.L.DAVE, J.) MH Dave Sd/-
(PARESH UPADHYAY, J.)