Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 919 (GUJ)

State of Gujarat v. Krushnasinh

2016-04-28

A.J.SHASTRI, M.R.SHAH

body2016
JUDGMENT : M.R. Shah, J. 1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order of acquittal passed by the learned Principal Special Judge, Surendranagar (hereinafter referred to as "the learned trial Court") in Special Case No. 38/2004 by which the learned trial Court has acquitted the respondents herein-original accused for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 504, 34 of the Indian Penal Code for the offences punishable under Sections 3(1)(10) and 3(2)(5) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act, State has preferred the present Appeal. 2. The prosecution case in a nutshell is as under:- 2.1 One Rudiben lodged the complaint with Lakhtar Police Station against the respondents-original accused persons, which was registered as FIR, being C.R. No. I 12/2004 alleging inter alia that the respondents-original accused persons have committed the offences punishable under Sections 302,504, 34 of the Indian Penal Code; for the offences punishable under Sections 3(1)(10) and 3(2)(5) of the Atrocity Act and Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act. The said FIR was lodged at about 2:30 p.m. it was alleged that at about 9:30 in the morning on 15/03/2004 there was some altercation of words between Bapalal and Saktisinh with respect to construction of road near the house of the original complainant. It was alleged that the work of construction of RCC road was taken by Bapalal, Shaktising (original accused No. 2) and Chotubha. It was alleged that at that time when the aforesaid three persons, Bapalal, Shaktising and Chotuba were standing near her house, husband of the original complainant told them to construct good road and if they are not going to construct good road they should not take out the stones. It was further alleged that at that time Shaktisinh started abusing her husband and the husband of the original complainant told him not to use filthy language and at that time Shaktising (original accused No. 2) raised his hands to beat her husband, however, he was not successful due to her intervention. Thereafter, she went to draw water in the village and at that time brother of Shaktising, Manharsing @ Munno Dilipsingh (original accused No. 3), saw her and stated that instead of using filthy words against her husband only hands were required to be used. Thereafter, she went to draw water in the village and at that time brother of Shaktising, Manharsing @ Munno Dilipsingh (original accused No. 3), saw her and stated that instead of using filthy words against her husband only hands were required to be used. It was further alleged that thereafter at about 10:45 a.m. her husband had gone on bicycle to Lakhtar as he was having some work at Lakhtar. At about 11:30 a.m. when she was at her house she got information from her brother-in-law (younger brother of her husband) that Hiralal-husband of the original complainant had met with an accident. It was further alleged that when she went to the bus stand one Sureshbhai Vaghri, rickshaw/chakdaw driver, also told her that Hiralal-husband of the original complainant has met with an accident and his bicycle has fallen on one side. However, as there were passengers in the rickshaw/chakdaw he did not stop there. It was further alleged that thereafter she went to the place of the incident and saw Hiralal (her husband) dead and he was having blood stains. It was further alleged that on the body of the deceased there were injuries by sharp cutting weapons. It was alleged that with a view to take revenge with regard to what had happened in the morning all the original accused have killed her husband-Hiralal. 2.2 The aforesaid FIR was initially investigated by one Shri K.B. Vaghel, Dy. S.P. Surendranagar. However, thereafter the investigation was handed over to P.W. 23-Gulammoyudin Kaji. He recorded the statement of the concerned witnesses. He also prepared the panchnama of the place of the incident. He arrested original accused Nos. 2, 3 and 4 on 19/03/2004 as they themselves appeared before the Police Station. He prepared their arrest panchnama. He discovered/recovered the clothes of original accused Nos. 2 and 3 having blood stains, knife used by original accused No. 3-Manharsinh having blood stains and gupti having blood stains alleged to have been used by original accused No. 2-Shaktisinh at the instance of original accused No. 3-Manharsinh and from the place which was shown by original accused No. 3-Manharsinh which can be said to be in exclusive knowledge o original accused No. 3. He also obtained the Post Mortem report. He also collected the blood sample of the deceased. Thereafter, original accused No. 1-Krushnasinh was arrested. He also recovered the clothes of original accused Nos. He also obtained the Post Mortem report. He also collected the blood sample of the deceased. Thereafter, original accused No. 1-Krushnasinh was arrested. He also recovered the clothes of original accused Nos. 1 and 4. The investigating Officer sent the blood samples of the deceased, the clothes of original accused Nos. 1 to 4 as well as the weapons, which were recovered at the instance of original accused No. 3-Manharsingh to the FSL and also obtained the serological report from the FSL. During the course of the investigation, the Investigating Officer also recorded the statement of one Ishwarbhai Revabhai Patel and Gordhanbhai Fulabhai Mehariya, Head Master and Supervisor of Lakhtar School. At the conclusion of the investigation the Investigating Officer filed the charge-sheet against all the original accused for the aforesaid offences in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Lakhtar. However, the case was exclusively triable by the learned Special Court. He committed the case to the Special Court, which was numbered as Special Case No. 38/2004. The learned Special Court framed the charge against all the original accused for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 504, 34 of the Indian Penal Code; for the offences punishable under Sections 3(1)(10) and 3(2)(5) of the Atrocity Act and Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act. All the original accused pleaded not guilty and therefore, all of them came to be tried by the learned Special Judge for the aforesaid offences. To prove the case against the original accused the prosecution examined the following witnesses:- S. No. Particulars Exhibit 1. Complainant Rudiben W/o Hirabhai Jadav 16 2. Panch Baldevbhai Popatbhai 18 3. Panch Kanabhai Vashrambhai 20 4. Panch Dayabhai Laljibhai 21 5. Panch Balvalbhai Virjibhai 22 6. Panch Rameshbhai Laljibhai 23 7. Panch Jasmatbhai Laljibhai 24 8. Panch Ramabhai Bhikhabhai 25 9. Panch Sureshbhai Naranbhai 26 10. Panch Sureshbhai Lilabhai Rathod 27 11. Panch Dhirubhai Karshmashibhai 28 12. Panch Sagarbhai Ramjibhai 29 13. Witness Ramanikbhai Karshanbhai Jadav 32 14. Sureshbhai Pamabhai 33 15. Witness Mohanbhai Khimjibhai 34 16. Dr. Pranav Narendrabhai Thakar 35 17. Circle Officer Kalyanbhai Jivabhai Vaghela 39 18. Police Witness Jasvantsinh Anandsinh Rana 41 19. P.S.O. Udesinh Andubha Zala 43 20. P.S.I. Mayank Mukundbhai Rajyaguru 46 21. Witness Maheshbhai Dilipbhai Dave 49 22. P.S.O. Ismailbhai Mahamedbhai 51 23. Witness Ramanikbhai Karshanbhai Jadav 32 14. Sureshbhai Pamabhai 33 15. Witness Mohanbhai Khimjibhai 34 16. Dr. Pranav Narendrabhai Thakar 35 17. Circle Officer Kalyanbhai Jivabhai Vaghela 39 18. Police Witness Jasvantsinh Anandsinh Rana 41 19. P.S.O. Udesinh Andubha Zala 43 20. P.S.I. Mayank Mukundbhai Rajyaguru 46 21. Witness Maheshbhai Dilipbhai Dave 49 22. P.S.O. Ismailbhai Mahamedbhai 51 23. Investigating Officer Gulammoyuddin Umarmiya Kaji 54 Through the aforesaid witnesses the prosecution also brought on record the following documentary evidences:- S. No. Particulars of documents Exhibit 1. Inquest Panchnama 17 2. Panchnama of place of offence 19 3. Report written for conducting postmortem of deceased 36 4. Postmortem Report of the deceased 37 5. Letter written to Lakhtar Police Station for sending the blood sample taken from the body of the deceased 38 6. Map of the place of incident 40 7. Photographs and Report of the place of incident 42 8. Extract of entry made in the station diary of Lakhtar Police Station 44 9. Original complaint of the complainant along with FIR 47 10. Panchnama of recovery of clothes of the deceased seized from the body of the deceased 48 11. Copy of notification weapon prohibition 50 12. Extract of entry made in station diary of Lakhtar Police Station 52 13. Panchnama of articles recovered from the local place 67 14. Panchnama of articles recovered from local place and submitting to the police station 68 15. Panchnama of arrest of accused Manharsinh @ Munna Dilipsinh and Shaktisinh Dilipsinh 55 16. Discovery Panchnama of discovery of muddamal weapon shown by accused Manharsinh @ Munna 56 17. Panchnama of recovery of clothes worn by accused Krushnasinh @ Bapalal at the time of offence 57 18. Panchnama of recovery of clothes worn by accused Mahipatsinh @ Chhotubhai at time of offence 58 19. Copy of the letter sent of FSL, Junagadh sending the seized muddamal along with papers and report pertaining to it. 59 to 65 20. Caste certificate of the complainant 66 2.3 However, it is required to be noted that Ishwarbhai Revabhai Patel and Gordhanbhai Fulabhai Mehariya, Head Master and Supervisor of Lakhtar School whose statements were recorded by the Investigating Officer during the course of the investigation were shown as witnesses in charge-sheet but the prosecution did not examine them. 59 to 65 20. Caste certificate of the complainant 66 2.3 However, it is required to be noted that Ishwarbhai Revabhai Patel and Gordhanbhai Fulabhai Mehariya, Head Master and Supervisor of Lakhtar School whose statements were recorded by the Investigating Officer during the course of the investigation were shown as witnesses in charge-sheet but the prosecution did not examine them. The aforesaid is required to be considered and which shall be dealt with hereinafter as it was the specific case on behalf of original accused No. 4 that at the time of the incident he was at Lakhtar School working as Supervisor as the examination was going on and the aforesaid two witnesses as such specifically stated that on 15/03/2004 between 10:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. original accused No. 4 was in the School as he was a Supervisor there. 2.4 After the closing purshis submitted by the prosecution further statement of the original accused came to be recorded. All the original accused denied having committed the offences. They stated that they are innocent. Original accused No. 4 specifically stated in his 313 statement that a false case has been filed against him. He specifically stated that on 15/03/2004 he was at Lakhtar High School working as Supervisor between 10:30 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. 2.5 At the conclusion of the trial the learned trial Court has acquitted the original accused from all the charges for which they were tried. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order of acquittal passed by the learned trial Court, State has preferred the present Appeal under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 3. Ms. Moksha Thakkar, learned APP appearing on behalf of the State has vehemently submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case the learned trial Court has materially erred in acquitting the respondents-original accused. 3.1 It is vehemently submitted by Ms. Moksha Thakkar, learned APP appearing on behalf of the State that in the present case the prosecution has been successful in proving the case against all the respondents-original accused by leading cogent evidence, and therefore, the learned trial Court has materially erred in acquitting the respondents-original accused. It is further submitted by Ms. 3.1 It is vehemently submitted by Ms. Moksha Thakkar, learned APP appearing on behalf of the State that in the present case the prosecution has been successful in proving the case against all the respondents-original accused by leading cogent evidence, and therefore, the learned trial Court has materially erred in acquitting the respondents-original accused. It is further submitted by Ms. Moksha Thakkar, learned APP appearing on behalf of the State that the learned trial Court has not properly appreciated the evidence of the original complainant-Rudiben, wife of Hiralal Jadav-P.W. 1, who has been examined at Exh. 16 wherein she has fully supported the complaint at Exh. 47. It is submitted that the learned trial Court has materially erred in holding that the complainant is not the eye witness to the incident and her evidence is a hear say evidence, and therefore, no reliance has been placed on such evidence. It is further submitted by Ms. Moksha Thakkar, learned APP appearing on behalf of the State that the learned trial Court has not appreciated the evidence of the prosecution witness P.W. 14-Sureshbhai Pamabhai, who has been examined at Exh. 33 wherein he has fully supported the prosecution case and has categorically stated that the dead body of the deceased-Hiralal was lying on road near Halardi Talavadi. It is submitted that in fact the said witness has also explained why he did not stop when he saw the dead body of the deceased-Hiralal alone on the road. He has deposed that as his rickshaw was loaded with passengers he did not stop his rickshaw. It is further submitted that even the prosecution has been successful in proving that immediately after the dispute with the original accused, body of the deceased was found lying on the road. It is further submitted by Ms. Moksha Thakkar, learned APP appearing on behalf of the State that even the learned trial Court has not appreciated the deposition/evidence of Ramanikbhai Karshanbhai Jadav-P.W. 13 who has been examined at Exh. 32, who is an eye witness to the incident. It is submitted that the said witness has also supported the complaint and has categorically stated that as on the date of the incident he was going towards village Devaliya on his bicycle at that time he saw the respondents-original accused beating the deceased Hiralal with deadly weapons. 32, who is an eye witness to the incident. It is submitted that the said witness has also supported the complaint and has categorically stated that as on the date of the incident he was going towards village Devaliya on his bicycle at that time he saw the respondents-original accused beating the deceased Hiralal with deadly weapons. It is submitted that the said witness has further deposed that the original accused-Shaktisinh was armed with gupti and Manharsinh was armed with knife and other two persons caught hold of the deceased-Hiralal. It is submitted that the said witness has also identified the original accused before the Court. It is submitted that the learned trial Court has materially erred in acquitting the original accused. It is submitted by Ms. Moksha Thakkar, learned APP that the injuries on the deceased by gupti and knife have been corroborated by the deposition of Dr. Pranav Narendrabhai Thakar, P.W. 16 who has been examined at Exh. 35 as well as from the medical evidence. It is submitted that on evidence and more particularly from the deposition of Mohanbhai Khimjibhai, P.W. 15 the prosecution has proved that on the date of the incident there was dispute between the original accused and the deceased-Hiralal with respect to construction of RCC road work. It is submitted that therefore the motive for the original accused to commit the offence has been established and proved. 3.2 It is further submitted by Ms. Moksha Thakkar, learned APP appearing on behalf of the State that as such in the present case there is recovery of clothes of original accused Nos. 2 and 3 having blood stains of the deceased (having same blood group of the deceased) and there is also recovery of gupti and knife used in commission of the offence by original accused Nos. 2 and 3 at the instance of original accused No. 3 and from the place shown by original accused No. 3, which can be said to be in the exclusive knowledge of original accused No. 3. It is submitted that the original accused have not explained the blood of the deceased on their clothes. No other submissions have been made. 2 and 3 at the instance of original accused No. 3 and from the place shown by original accused No. 3, which can be said to be in the exclusive knowledge of original accused No. 3. It is submitted that the original accused have not explained the blood of the deceased on their clothes. No other submissions have been made. Making the above submissions it is requested to allow the present Appeal and quash and set aside the impugned judgment and order of acquittal passed by the learned trial Court and consequently convict the respondents-original accused for the offences for which they were tried. 4. The present Appeal is opposed by Shri Manraj Barot, learned advocate appearing on behalf of respondent No. 1-original accused No. 1 and Shri H.M. Jadeja, learned advocate appearing on behalf of respondent No. 4-original accused No. 4. 5. Though served, nobody appears on behalf of respondents Nos. 2 and 3-original accused Nos. 2 and 3, and therefore, we have requested Shri Manraj Barot, learned advocate appearing on behalf of original accused No. 1 to assist the Court and appear on behalf of respondents Nos. 2 and 3 also. 6. Shri Manraj Barot, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the original accused has vehemently submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case as such no error has been committed by the learned trial Court in acquitting the original accused for the offences for which they were tried. It is vehemently submitted by Shri Manraj Barot, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the original accused that in the present case P.W. 1-original complainant cannot be said to be the eye witness to the incident, and therefore, the learned trial Court has rightly held that she is not the eye witness and her evidence is rightly discarded. 6.1 It is further submitted that on appreciation of evidence, the learned trial Court has rightly disbelieved and/or discarded the deposition of P.W. 13-Ramanikbhai Karshanbhai Jadav, who according to the prosecution was the eye witness to the incident. 6.1 It is further submitted that on appreciation of evidence, the learned trial Court has rightly disbelieved and/or discarded the deposition of P.W. 13-Ramanikbhai Karshanbhai Jadav, who according to the prosecution was the eye witness to the incident. It is submitted that looking to his conduct and the material contradictions in his depositions it is not proved that as such at the time of commission of the offence/incident he was going to Devaliya from Lakhtar on bicycle and thereafter after seeing the incident he again goes to Lakhtar and according to the prosecution he stayed at a tea stall for the whole day and thereafter he went to his house and did not disclose to anybody with respect to the incident till next day morning. It is submitted that the aforesaid conduct creates doubt that he was the eye witness to the incident. It is submitted that he being the chance witness the learned trial Court has rightly discarded the deposition. It is further submitted that even the learned trial Court has rightly discarded the deposition of P.W. 14-Sureshbhai Pamabhai. It is submitted that looking to the conduct and the material contradictions in his deposition he cannot be said to be the eye witness to the incident. It is submitted that the said witness in his deposition has not stated that he saw the accused who was beating the deceased-Hiralal. It is submitted that according to the said witness when he was proceeding from Lakhtar to Devaliya he saw one dead body on the road and it was found that the said dead body was of Hiralal. It is submitted that therefore even the said witness also cannot be said to be the eye witness to the incident. 6.2 It is further submitted by Shri Barot, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the original accused that in the present case there cannot be discovery of the weapons and the clothes of the original accused No. 2-Shaktisinh at the instance of original accused No. 2. It is submitted that admittedly even according to the prosecution there was recovery of clothes of original accused Nos. 2 and 3 and gupti and knife, the weapons used in commission of the offence having blood stains of the deceased, at the instance of original accused No. 3 alone. It is submitted that admittedly even according to the prosecution there was recovery of clothes of original accused Nos. 2 and 3 and gupti and knife, the weapons used in commission of the offence having blood stains of the deceased, at the instance of original accused No. 3 alone. It is submitted that therefore the said discovery/recovery of the clothes and the weapons having blood stains of the deceased cannot be used against original accused No. 2. It is further submitted that in the present case it was the specific case on behalf of original accused No. 4 that at the time of the incident he was in the school and even for that the statement of the Principal of the school and the Supervisor of the school i.e. Ishwarbhai Revabhai Patel and Gordhanbhai Fulabhai Mehariya were recorded and even the certificate was issued by Ishwarbhai stating that at the time of the incident original accused No. 4 was in the school and though the aforesaid two persons were cited as witness in the charge-sheet the prosecution has deliberately not examined the said witnesses. It is submitted that therefore the prosecution has withheld the material witness/ evidence, which was in favour of the original accused, and therefore, the learned trial Court has rightly drawn adverse inference against the prosecution. Making the above submissions, it is requested to dismiss the present Appeal. 7. Heard the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties at length. We have considered and gone through the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned trial Court in detail including the reasoning given by the learned trial Court while acquitting the respondents-original accused. We have re appreciated the entire evidence on record. At the outset it is required to be noted that the original accused were charged and tried for the offences punishable under Sections punishable under Sections 302, 504, 34 of the Indian Penal Code; for the offences punishable under Sections 3(1)(10) and 3(2)(5) of the Atrocity Act and Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act, and therefore, State has preferred the present Appeal for the death of the deceased-Hiralal, whose dead body was found on the road alongwith his bicycle. 7.1 From the evidence on record and the case of the prosecution it appears that the prosecution heavily relied upon the deposition of P.W. 1-Rudiben-original complainant, P.W. 13-Ramanikbhai Karshanbhai Jadav (Exh. 7.1 From the evidence on record and the case of the prosecution it appears that the prosecution heavily relied upon the deposition of P.W. 1-Rudiben-original complainant, P.W. 13-Ramanikbhai Karshanbhai Jadav (Exh. 32) and P.W. 15-Mohanbhai Khimjibhai (Exh. 34). However, on considering the deposition of Rudiben-P.W. 1, Sureshbhai-P.W. 14 and Mohanbhai Khimjibhai-P.W. 15 they cannot be said to be eye witness to the incident having seen the original accused beating the deceased-Hiralal. The evidence of Rudiben can be said to be hearsay, more particularly, from P.W. 14-Sureshbhai Pamabhai. 7.2 The prosecution has heavily relied upon the deposition of P.W. 13-Ramanikbhai Karshanbhai Jadav, who according to the prosecution was the eye witness to the incident and he saw the original accused beating the deceased-Hirabhai. However, on considering the deposition of P.W. 13-Ramanikbhai Karshanbhai Jadav, we are of the opinion that the said witness is not reliable and trustworthy and/or he can be said to be chance witness and as such he cannot be said to be the eye witness to the incident. It is required to be noted that the said Ramanikbhai was the resident of Devaliya and not the resident of Lakhtar. According to him at about 11:00 a.m. in the morning he was going to Devaliya from Lakhtar on bicycle and at that time he saw original accused No. 3 beating the deceased-Hiralal and other two persons had caught hold of the deceased-Hiralal. However, there is no corroborating evidence to prove that at the time of the incident and prior to the incident he was at Lakhtar and he was proceeding towards Devaliya from Lakhtar. No evidence whatsoever has been led to prove that he was going from Lakhtar to Devaliya on his bicycle. As observed hereinabove, he was the resident of Devaliya and according to him he was going to Devaliya from Lakhtar. The prosecution was required to prove that in the morning he was at Laktar and going to Devaliya on his bicycle. The prosecution has failed to prove the same. Even subsequently the conduct on the part of the said witness-Ramanikbhai creates a serious doubt that he had seen the original accused beating the deceased-Hiralal. The prosecution was required to prove that in the morning he was at Laktar and going to Devaliya on his bicycle. The prosecution has failed to prove the same. Even subsequently the conduct on the part of the said witness-Ramanikbhai creates a serious doubt that he had seen the original accused beating the deceased-Hiralal. On considering this deposition and according to him after seeing the original accused beating the deceased-Hiralal near Talavadi he went to a tea stall and till evening he stayed there and thereafter he goes to his house and till then, he did not disclose about the incident to anybody. It is not even proved that he was at the hotel/tea stall till evening. Even thereafter also when he goes to his house he is not disclosing anything about the incident to his father. He did not even disclose about the incident to anybody till the next day morning. The aforesaid conduct on the part of the said witness is absolutely unnatural and it creates doubt about the fact that he had seen the original accused beating the deceased-Hiralal. Under the circumstances, the learned trial Court has rightly discarded the deposition/evidence. 7.3 Now so far as the submissions on behalf of the prosecution that there was recovery of the clothes of original accused Nos. 2 and 3 having blood stains of the deceased and the recovery of the gupti and knife used by the original accused Nos. 2 and 3 having commission of the offence having blood stains is concerned, it was at the instance of the original accused No. 3 and the place which was shown by original accused No. 3, and therefore, the learned trial Court ought to have acquitted original accused Nos. 2 and 3 is concerned it is required to be noted that the aforesaid recovery of the clothes of original accused No. 2 and the weapon alleged to have been used by original accused No. 2 having blood stains of the deceased cannot be used against original accused No. 2 as the said recovery/discovery of the clothes and the weapons were admittedly at the instance of original accused No. 3, and therefore, the same cannot bind and/or rest against original accused No. 2. Under the circumstances, there is no evidence against original accused No. 2. Under the circumstances, there is no evidence against original accused No. 2. Now so far as original accused No. 3 is concerned, there is recovery of his clothes and the weapon used by him with the blood stains of the deceased. The said recovery is at the instance of original accused No. 3 and from the place which was shown by original accused No. 3, which can be said to be in his exclusive knowledge, and therefore, it can be said to discovery under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. The same has been duly proved by the prosecution by examining the Investigating Officer. Original accused No. 3 has not thereafter explained the blood stains on his clothes and the weapon used by him having blood stains of the deceased. Under the circumstances, on the basis of the aforesaid, original accused No. 3 can be held guilty for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code having killed the deceased-Hiralal. The death of the deceased-Hiralal was homicidal death which has been established and proved by leading medical evidence. Now so far as original accused No. 4 is concerned, it is required to be noted from the very beginning that his case was that he has been falsely implicated in the case and at the time of the incident he was at Lakhtar School Supervising the exam of Standard X and X11. Even the said defence was also taken by him in his further statement under Section 313. Even the certificate issued by one Ishwarbhai Revabhai Patel and Gordhanbhai Fulabhai Mehariya, Head Master and Supervisor of Lakhtar School was also placed on record. From the charge-sheet papers it appears that Ishwarbhai Revabhai Patel and Gordhanbhai Fulabhai Mehariya, Head Master and Supervisor of Lakhtar School were shown were also shown as witnesses and a certificate was issued by Ishwarbhai that original accused No. 4 at the time of the incident was in the school working as Supervisor. The prosecution has not examined the said witness. Though it can be said that the material evidence, which was in favour of original accused No. 4 has been withheld by the prosecution, adverse inference was required to be drawn against the prosecution and the learned trial Court has rightly drawn the adverse inference against the prosecution. The prosecution has not examined the said witness. Though it can be said that the material evidence, which was in favour of original accused No. 4 has been withheld by the prosecution, adverse inference was required to be drawn against the prosecution and the learned trial Court has rightly drawn the adverse inference against the prosecution. It was the duty of the prosecution and the Public Prosecutor to produce all the relevant evidence/material on record and if the material evidence, which might even go in favour of the original accused it could not have been withheld and if the same is withheld for no reasons and/or without any explanation, adverse inference is required to be drawn. Under the circumstances, the impugned judgment and order of acquittal passed by the learned trial Court is quashed and set aside so far as original accused No. 4 is concerned and the same is not required to be interfered with. 8. In view of the above and for the reasons stated hereinabove, the learned trial Court has rightly acquitted original accused Nos. 1, 2 and 4. However, the learned trial Court has committed a grave error in acquitting original accused No. 3. The learned trial Court has not properly appreciated and/or the finding recorded by the learned trial while acquitting original accused No. 3 can be said to be perverse and/or contrary to the evidence on record, which has resulted into miscarriage of justice, and therefore, the impugned judgment and order acquitting original accused No. 3 is required to be interfered with in exercise of appellate jurisdiction.