Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Phanaganabhai Hemabhai Taral on 8 January, 2025
Author: A.S. Supehia
Bench: A.S. Supehia, Gita Gopi
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/763/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/01/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 763 of 2003
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA Sd/-
and
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE GITA GOPI Sd/-
================================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
✔
================================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
PHANAGANABHAI HEMABHAI TARAL & ANR.
================================================================
Appearance:
MR CM SHAH, APP for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR MRUDUL M BAROT(3750) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1,2
================================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA
and
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE GITA GOPI
Date : 08/01/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA)
1. The present appeal filed under Section 378(1)(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is directed against the judgment and order dated 31.01.2003 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Sabarkantha at Himmatnagar in Sessions Case No.79 of 2001 acquitting the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 307, 336, 337, 338 and 332, 333, 323, 324 read with Section 114 Page 1 of 7 Uploaded by CAROLINE ANTHONISWAMY(HC00212) on Fri Jan 10 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jan 10 23:09:16 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/763/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/01/2025 undefined of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and under Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act.
2. The case of the prosecution as per the charge at Exhibit 8 is that on 15.01.2001 at around 7.30 hours, the accused while they were preparing dinner assaulted the complainant and the injured witnesses PW7-Bhupsingh Yadav, PW9-Gangaram Shane with a stone and knife. Thus, in the said assault, the injured witness- Bhupsingh Yadav suffered simple injuries on his hand whereas the other witness-Gangaram Shane suffered fracture in the left tibia due to hurling of stone.
3. The complaint was registered by PW11-Hareshbhai Samantbhai, who was an armed Police Constable serving in SRP Group 18 on 15.01.2001. PW10-Dr. Rita Sinha is examined at Exhibit 31, and who refers to the injury of the injured witness Gangaram Shane. Her evidence reveals that she has examined the aforesaid witness and has referred to his injuries. However, it appears that before he was examined by this witness, the injured witness had already undertaken some treatment from other Doctor and had brought the X-Ray which suggests that he had suffered fracture in his left leg. Thus, the Doctor who has actually treated the injured witness-Gangaram Shane has not been examined. The certificate at Exhibit 33 refers to the injury with a hard and blunt object. We may at this stage, also refer to the medical certificate of the other injured witness against whom the simple injury of Page 2 of 7 Uploaded by CAROLINE ANTHONISWAMY(HC00212) on Fri Jan 10 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jan 10 23:09:16 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/763/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/01/2025 undefined abrasion in his right forearm is found. The type of object referred in the Certificate by which the alleged injury is caused is referred as 'hard and blunt'. The trial Court after examining the oral and documentary evidence has acquitted the accused. Being aggrieved by the observations of the Trial Court, the present Appeal has been filed by the State.
4. Learned APP Ms. C.M. Shah has submitted that the judgment and order passed by the Trial Court is required to be interfered with since the aforesaid medical evidence will reveal that the incident has occurred and one of the injured witness who was serving in the SRP as a Constable was attacked by the accused on 15.01.2001. She has also referred to the deposition of the complainant PW11-Hareshbhai Samantbhai and also the deposition of the injured eye witness PW6-Ranjitsinh Rupsinh and PW9- Gangaram Shane and has submitted that the evidence establishes that the accused had assaulted him while they were preparing their dinner.
5. Learned APP Ms. C.M. Shah has also referred to the deposition of eyewitness PW7-Bhupsingh Yadav. Further reference is made to the evidence PW8-Maheshkumar Sankarlal, who has been examined at Exhibit 29 and has submitted that the evidence clearly establishes that the incident has occurred and the accused are involved in the offence. Thus, it is urged that judgment and order of acquittal passed by the trial Court may be quashed and set aside.
Page 3 of 7 Uploaded by CAROLINE ANTHONISWAMY(HC00212) on Fri Jan 10 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jan 10 23:09:16 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/763/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/01/2025 undefined
6. Apropos to the aforesaid submissions, learned advocate Mr. Mrudul M. Barot appearing for the accused have urged that the judgment and order passed by the trial Court may not be disturbed as the same is precisely declared. At the outset, it is submitted that the prosecution has miserably failed to establish the motive or cause of the incident. It is submitted that infact the trial Court after examining the oral and documentary evidence has acquitted the accused. The evidence does not in any manner reveal as to why the incident has occurred and the accused who would dared to assault the personnel of SRP in the night hours of 15.01.2001.
7. Learned advocate Mr. Mrudul M. Barot has further submitted that the evidence of the injured witness reveals that they were not on duty when the alleged incident occurred and hence, the trial Court has precisely acquitted them for the offences punishable under Sections 332 and 333 of IPC. It is further submitted that the injuries which have been alleged to have been caused by the accused on PW9-Gangaram Shane, as per the certificate, is caused by hurling stone by the other accused who was not tried in the present offence and there was supplementary charge-sheet filed against the said person. Thus, it is submitted that the judgment and order passed by the trial Court may not be interfered with.
8. We have heard learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and have also perused the evidence threadbare. As Page 4 of 7 Uploaded by CAROLINE ANTHONISWAMY(HC00212) on Fri Jan 10 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jan 10 23:09:16 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/763/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/01/2025 undefined mentioned hereinabove, the respondent accused were charged for the offences for the incident which has occurred on 15.01.2001 at about 7.30 pm while they were preparing their dinner in their tent / hall. After minute examination of the evidence on record, we have failed to find the motive or the cause behind the incident. The trial Court has also observed that the prosecution has miserably failed to point out the cause or motive of the alleged incident and why the accused could have attacked or assaulted the SRP personnel while they were preparing the dinner.
9. We are in absolute agreement with the observations of the trial Court in this regard. The evidence of the injured witnesses, more particularly, PW7-Bhupsingh Yadav and PW9-Gangaram Shane clarifies that they were not on duty when the incident had occurred and were preparing dinner. Thus, the offences under the provisions of Section 332 and 333 of the IPC are not established in any manner against the respondent accused.
10. Though the injured witnesses as well as the complainant have identified the accused in the Court, since they had apprehended the accused at the time of incident, however, the same would not be enough to establish the offences as charged against them. In absence of any cogent evidence as well as the motive of the accused, there appears to be inconsistencies in the evidence of the injured witness in the manner in which the incident has occurred. The injured eye witness PW6-Ranjitsinh Rupsinh has stated that the Page 5 of 7 Uploaded by CAROLINE ANTHONISWAMY(HC00212) on Fri Jan 10 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jan 10 23:09:16 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/763/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/01/2025 undefined incident has occurred due to some slap given by the accused to the injured witness. However, the said fact is missing in the complaint which has been registered by PW11-Hareshbhai Samantbhai. Similarly, the other witness PW9-Gangaram Shane also does not refer any incident of slap having been given by the accused to the eye witness PW7-Bhupsinh Yadav.
11. The ingredients of Section 307 of the IPC are absolutely not satisfied in the present case. Section 307 of the IPC stipulates the punishment for the offence of attempt to murder. Even if the facts as suggested by the prosecution are accepted as it is, the same would not in any manner satisfy the ingredients of Section 307 of the IPC. There is neither any intention or knowledge in committing the above act and the same has not been proved by the prosecution before the trial Court. In the medical evidence also, the injured witness have not named the accused though it is the case of the prosecution that they were apprehended at the time of incident. The medical evidence of the injured witness PW7-Bhupsinh Yadav, more particularly, the Certificate at Exhibit 35 reflects that he has received injuries by a hard and blunt substance and the case of the prosecution is that he was injured with a knife.
12. Thus, on an overall appreciation of the evidence and findings of the trial Court, we do not find any infirmity or perversity in the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge. Hence, we are not inclined to disturb the acquittal of the accused.
Page 6 of 7 Uploaded by CAROLINE ANTHONISWAMY(HC00212) on Fri Jan 10 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jan 10 23:09:16 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/763/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/01/2025 undefined
13. The present Appeal hence, is dismissed. Record and proceedings shall be returned forthwith.
Sd/-
(A. S. SUPEHIA, J) Sd/-
(GITA GOPI,J) CAROLINE / SB-I # 5 Page 7 of 7 Uploaded by CAROLINE ANTHONISWAMY(HC00212) on Fri Jan 10 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jan 10 23:09:16 IST 2025