Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 216 (GUJ)

State of Gujarat v. Laljibhai

2017-01-30

AKIL ABDUL HAMID KURESHI, BIREN VAISHNAV

body2017
JUDGMENT : Biren Vaishnav, J. 1. The State has come in appeal challenging the judgment and order dated 02.04.1994 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural) in Sessions Case No. 8 of 1993. By the said judgment, the original accused - respondents herein, 7 in number have been acquitted of the offences under sections 147, 148, 149, 302 and 341 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. It is the case of the prosecution that on 25.06.1992, at around 10 in the morning, Narsinhbhai Shankarbhai boarded a bus to Dholka. Along with him, one Lalji Dhudabhai, Manilal Dhudabhaiand Manubhai Kalabhai, accused Nos. 1, 2 and 4 respectively also boarded the bus. A heated argument occurred in the bus as a result of which Laljibhai and Manilal attacked Narsinhbhai with sticks. The bus was thereafter stopped at a distance on the road to Dholka. Narsinhbhai and the accused Nos. 1 and 2 alighted from the bus. Both the accused Nos. 1 and 2 attacked Narsinhbhai as a result of which Narsinhbhai sustained injuries and succumbed to the injuries so sustained. It was the case of the prosecution that the remaining accused Nos. 3 to 7 were also present when deceased Narsinhbhai alighted from the bus along with accused Nos. 1 and 2. Based on the investigation so carried out, a charge-sheet was filed at Ex. 8 and the accused, 7 in number were charged for offences under section 147, 148, 149, 302 and 341 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. If the evidence led by the prosecution witnesses is read not in the order in which they are examined but at first in point of time, we need to read the testimony of P.W. 3 - Govindbhai Shankarbhai alias Mafatbhai who is examined at Ex. 25. This is because it was at his instance that the complainant Chandubhai did come to know that the incident had occurred. This witness testifies that he was a resident of Kadipur and was an agricultural labourer. He is deceased Narsinhbhai's brother. According to him, Narsinhbhai was a green grocer carrying out his vocation at Kadipur. He was staying along with Narsinhbhai at the village. 3.1 On 25.06.1992, at around 9 in the morning, Narsinhbhai left home informing that he was leaving for Dholka to get stock for his shop. He was boarding the bus from the bus stand. According to him, Narsinhbhai was a green grocer carrying out his vocation at Kadipur. He was staying along with Narsinhbhai at the village. 3.1 On 25.06.1992, at around 9 in the morning, Narsinhbhai left home informing that he was leaving for Dholka to get stock for his shop. He was boarding the bus from the bus stand. At that point of time, he was followed by accused Nos. 1 and 2. He identified both the accused Nos. 1 and 2 who were present in the court. He also identified the other accused as they were of the same village. He further states that before the bus arrived, 5 persons namely accused No. 3 - Dhudabhai Motibhai, accused No. 5 - Kalabhai Motibhai, accused No. 6 - Jashubhai Kalabhai, accused No. 4 - Manubhai Kalabhai and accused No. 7 - Hirabhai Motibhai were proceeding towards Dadusar on the same road. While he had gone to attend nature's call, he saw his brother boarding the bus and occupying a seat. Accused Nos. 1 and 2 immediately followed and boarded the bus with sticks in their hands. He saw accused Nos. 3 to 7 with sticks. When the bus left and it reached a particular distance, the bus stopped and some passengers alighted from the bus. Having sensed something unusual, he ran towards the bus. The bus thereafter left. He went to the field of one Manubhai Ishwarbhai. At a distance of about 300 to 400 feet, he saw the accused beating his brother with a stick. At that point of time, Pankhuben was at the nearby field. Bhupatbhai was standing at the opposite end of the road. When he was at a distance, accused No. 2 had seen him and on seeing him incited the others that since he had come he also should be attacked with sticks. On hearing this, he ran towards his house. He went to Chandubhai's house where Agarsinhbhai was also present. He narrated the incident to both Chandubhai and Agarsinh saying that his brother was being attacked by the 'Odes'. He told Chandubhai and Agarsinh to go to the place with some water. Since he was scared, he did not accompany Chandubhai and Agarsinh. Thereafter, he went to Dholka dispensary where he found that Narsinhbhai was not there and therefore he went to Dholka police station where he was told that his brother was taken to Ahmedabad. He told Chandubhai and Agarsinh to go to the place with some water. Since he was scared, he did not accompany Chandubhai and Agarsinh. Thereafter, he went to Dholka dispensary where he found that Narsinhbhai was not there and therefore he went to Dholka police station where he was told that his brother was taken to Ahmedabad. Chandubhai was present at the police station and was narrating the incident and his complaint was being recorded. The jeep that had proceeded to Ahmedabad with Narsinhbhai returned as Narsinhbhai had succumbed to the injuries on his way to Ahmedabad. He saw that his brother had sustained injuries on both his hands and his legs. According to these witnesses, since Narsinhbhai was a witness in a complaint that was filed by one Vilasben's husband Chandubhai since she had been kidnapped by the accused, the motive behind the attack was the lodging of this complaint. 3.2 This witness has been cross examined. He denies that he had stated in the police statement that he had seen accused Nos. 1 and 2 with a stick. He also denies that he had stated in his police statement that Pankhuben and Bhupatbhai were present in their fields and witnessed the incident. In the cross examination, he further states that he had seen the bus stop, door being opened and passengers alighting from the bus. About 10 to 15 passengers had got down from the bus. The bus soon left thereafter. Narsinhbhai was shouting for help. The passengers who had got down from the bus were going towards Dadusar. The passengers could hear his brother shouting for help. He further clarifies that when the bus stopped near the village and when his brother got into the bus he did not see as to how many passengers got into the bus and was also not sure as to how many passengers got down at the place. He admits when a suggestion is put to him that he did not see Pankhuben at the scene of the incident. According to this witness, in addition to Chandubhai, Vahabhai, Jerambhai, Kanabhai and Jivabhai were present at the police station. 4. P.W. 1 - Chandubhai Vajesingbhai who is the complainant has been examined at Ex. 22. He testifies that on 25.06.1992 at 09.00 am the incident in question had occurred. According to this witness, in addition to Chandubhai, Vahabhai, Jerambhai, Kanabhai and Jivabhai were present at the police station. 4. P.W. 1 - Chandubhai Vajesingbhai who is the complainant has been examined at Ex. 22. He testifies that on 25.06.1992 at 09.00 am the incident in question had occurred. Govindbhai Shankarbhai had informed him that his brother Narsinhbhai was attacked by the 'Odes'. On being so informed, he along with Agarsinh went to the scene of the incident. The distance between his house and the place where Narsinhbhai was attacked was about a kilometer away. Narsinhbhai was lying at around 1 1/2 feet bordering the road. Narsinhbhai was alive. He had sustained fracture on both hands and legs and was injured on his head and was bleeding. When he asked Narsinhbhai as to what had happened, Narsinhbhai had said that as he was a witness to the complaint filed by Vilasben's husband wherein the Odes were involved, the accused Nos. 1 and 2 had entered into an argument in the bus. The bus was stopped and he was dragged down. The remaining five accused were also present there and he was attacked by all of them with sticks. According to this witness, Narsinhbhai informed him that it was all the seven accused who had attacked him with sticks. Agarsinh was present with him when Narsinhbhai narrated the whole incident. Pankhuben and Bhupatbhai were also present. He identified all the accused who were present in the court. Agarsinh was sent to fetch a rickshaw. Agarsinh, together with Pankhuben and the complainant, then took Narsinhbhai to a doctor who gave preliminary treatment and then advised that Narsinhbhai should be taken to Vadilal hospital at Ahmedabad. Narsinhbhai was then carried in a jeep. He stayed back to record the complaint. Jerambhai, Vahabhai, Kanabhai and Jivabhai were with him. Narsinhbhai was sent in the jeep. When the complaint was being recorded the jeep returned as Narsinhbhai had succumbed to injuries. The body was thereafter sent for post mortem. 4.1 This witness has been cross examined and according to him it was Govindbhai Shankarbhai who had informed him at the first instance. He admitted that in his police statement he had not stated that Pankhuben and Bhupatbhai were not present when the incident had occurred and that Pankhuben had accompanied him at the scene of offence. 4.1 This witness has been cross examined and according to him it was Govindbhai Shankarbhai who had informed him at the first instance. He admitted that in his police statement he had not stated that Pankhuben and Bhupatbhai were not present when the incident had occurred and that Pankhuben had accompanied him at the scene of offence. He admitted that he had stated in the complaint that Pankhuben had accompanied him to the scene of offence. He further states in his cross examination that the road on which Narsinhbhai was lying was a pakka road from Kadipur to Dadusar. There were bushes on both sides of the road and at times they were high enough so as to block the view of the vehicles that were passing by. He further in his cross examination states that when Narsinhbhai was taken to the dispensary, he was treated there for about half an hour. Narsinhbhai was not conscious at that point of time. In his cross examination, he further denies the suggestion that he had stated in the complaint that Narsinhbhai had told him that the accused Nos. 5, 6 and 7 were present at the scene of offence. He admitted that this fact was stated by him in his further statement. According to him, Govindbhai came at 2 O'clock in the afternoon at the police station when he was still there. 5. P.W. 13 - Agarsinh Parshottambhai has been examined at Ex. 50. According to this witness, on 25.06.1992 at 9 in the morning when he was at Chandubhai's place, Govindbhai Shankarbhai informed him that his brother Narsinh had been attacked by the Odes. According to him, when he accompanied Chandubhai to the scene of the incident, Bhupatbhai and Pankhuben were present there. Chandubhai sent him to fetch a rickshaw and he came back with a rickshaw 5 minutes thereafter. Narsinhbhai was taken to the Dholka dispensary where the doctor told him that since the injuries were serious he should be taken to Vadilal hospital at Ahmedabad. 5.1 In his cross examination, he admits that when the incident occurred, the police did come to his village for investigation. He did not volunteer to go to the police. The police recorded his statement after about ten to twelve days of the incident. 5.1 In his cross examination, he admits that when the incident occurred, the police did come to his village for investigation. He did not volunteer to go to the police. The police recorded his statement after about ten to twelve days of the incident. According to this witness, he alone had gone to the Dholka dispensary and the others left for Ahmedabad with Narsinhbhai in the jeep. He did not see Govindbhai either at Dholka or at the S.T. bus stand. This witness further in his cross examination states that the police had camped in the village for 10-15 days at the Gram Panchayat office. Govindbhai was staying close to his house. His statement was recorded at the Panchayat office on 07.07.1992. 6. P.W. 5 - Kantibhai Ishwarbhai is the passenger of the bus in which as per the prosecution story, Narsinhbhai was traveling to Dholka. According to this witness he was a resident of Kadipur and since he wanted to go to Dholka he went to the S.T. Bus stand at 08.30 in the morning. Narsinhbhai, accused No. 1 - Laljibhai and accused No. 2 - Manibhai whom he identified in court were present at the bus stand. Both accused Nos. 1 and 2 were carrying sticks in their hands. Narsinhbhai boarded the bus and occupied the last seat in the bus. When the bus had hardly gone a kilometer ahead, the accused Nos. 1 and 2 entered into an argument with deceased Narsinhbhai. According to this witness, Rupabhai intervened and stopped them from entering into an argument. The bus stopped at a distance. The accused Nos. 1 and 2 alighted from the bus and so did Narsinhbhai. The bus thereafter proceeded towards Dholka. In the evening, when he returned he was informed that Narsinhbhai had been done to death. He did not know the cause of Narsinhbhai's death. 6.1 In the cross examination, this witness states that his statement was recorded 4 - 5 days after the incident. A suggestion that somebody had taken out a knife inside the bus was denied. He denied the suggestion that he had given a statement before the police that Narsinhbhai had taken out a knife and attacked Laljibhai. He further said that it had not happened that when the bus had stopped at a distance, some 10 - 15 passengers alighted from the bus. He denied the suggestion that he had given a statement before the police that Narsinhbhai had taken out a knife and attacked Laljibhai. He further said that it had not happened that when the bus had stopped at a distance, some 10 - 15 passengers alighted from the bus. He also had got down from the bus. Ramjibhai, Jivabhai, Rupabhai all got down from the bus together. He denied the suggestion that only three persons had got down from the bus. When he got down from the bus, he did not find anyone from Kadipur at the scene of incident. All of them started walking towards Dadusar. Then did not hear any shouts. The road to Kadipur is a narrow road and therefore is surrounded by bushes on both the sides of the road. 7. P.W. 6 - Nazmaben Latifbhai is another passenger who had travelled by the same bus and has been examined at Ex. 29. According to her testimony, she was a resident of Dholka. On 25.06.1992, she had come to Kadipur to fetch her sister-in-law. At 08.30 in the morning, she was proceeding towards Dholka in the bus. About 15 passengers were seated in the bus. After going for a kilometer, the bus stopped and three passengers who were arguing had entered into an argument of which she identified accused Nos. 1 and 2 as being two of three while the third was not present in the court. The accused Nos. 1 and 2 had attacked the third passenger in the bus with a stick. The bus stopped. The accused Nos. 1 and 2 and the third person alighted from the bus. All the other passengers also alighted from the bus. She also got down from the bus and the bus proceeded further. 7.1 In her cross examination, she admitted that no test identification parade was carried out where she could identify the accused Nos. 1 and 2. She admitted that in her statement she had stated that there were three persons fighting. The police had recorded her statement on 08.07.1992. She admitted that she had not given her statement before the police that the accused Nos. 1 and 2 had attacked the third passenger in the bus with sticks. In her cross examination, she stated that she did not get down from the bus but the other passengers got down. The police had recorded her statement on 08.07.1992. She admitted that she had not given her statement before the police that the accused Nos. 1 and 2 had attacked the third passenger in the bus with sticks. In her cross examination, she stated that she did not get down from the bus but the other passengers got down. She further admitted that she had not recorded before the police that when the bus stopped the accused Nos. 1 and 2 had pushed the third passenger out of the bus and the other passengers had thereafter got down. Then she also did get down. She admitted that after the incident it was for the first time that she was seeing the accused Nos. 1 and 2 in the court. She admitted that she had not given her statement before the police that when she had boarded the bus there were 10-15 passengers in the bus. She also admitted that she had not stated in the police statement that after the passengers alighted from the bus, after a certain distance the bus stopped and they boarded the bus again. She in her cross examination stated that only three persons had got down from the bus, thereafter she added that about 10-15 passengers got down from the bus. She alone kept sitting in the bus whereas all the other passengers alighted from the bus. 8. The conductor of the bus, Hirabhai Makwana has been examined as P.W. 7 at Ex. 32. According to this witness, at 09.15 am when the bus was proceeding from Kadipur to Dholka, about 15 - 17 passengers were sitting in the bus. There was a commotion in the bus when the bus had hardly travelled a kilometer. One of the passengers stopped the bus. He was carrying a stick. He identified the said passenger as accused No. 1 who was present in the court. He further testifies that the accused No. 1 threatened the driver with serious consequences if he did not stop the bus and therefore the bus was stopped by the driver and except four passengers, others alighted from the bus. According to him, the accused Nos. 1 and 2 had dragged the third passenger out of the bus. That except the accused Nos. 1 and 2, none of the others who were present attacked the deceased. According to him, the accused Nos. 1 and 2 had dragged the third passenger out of the bus. That except the accused Nos. 1 and 2, none of the others who were present attacked the deceased. 8.1 In his cross examination, he admitted that he had not stated in the police statement that the bus had stopped at a kilometer's distance. He further admitted that he had not stated in his police statement that the accused No. 1 had threatened the driver to stop the bus and that therefore the driver had stopped the bus and that the passengers had alighted from the bus on being scared. He admitted that he had not stated in the police statement that three passengers were fighting in the bus and also that he had not stated in his police statement that the accused Nos. 1 and 2 had dragged the third passenger down from the bus. He denied that the bus had slowed down and three passengers had got down from the moving bus. He denied that he had stated in the police statement that when the bus slowed down, three passengers got down from the moving bus. He further admitted that he had not stated in the police statement that the accused Nos. 1 and 2 were carrying sticks when they were in the bus. According to this witness, in his cross examination, he states that the driver of the bus - Nagarji Lakhaji was also serving at the same depot and the police had come to record his statement on the second day. Both he and the driver then went to Dholka police station to give their statements. 9. P.W. 2 - Pankhuben is the witness, who according to the prosecution story has witnessed the incident while she was at the field. According to this witness, on the date of incident she had gone to the field at Dadusar and she was cutting grass on the field. That she had seen Narsinhbhai being attacked. After the incident she went to Narsinhbhai and offered him some water. Narsinhbhai's hands and legs had been broken and that he had sustained injuries on his head. When she was offering water to Narsinhbhai, Bhupatbhai, Chandubhai, Agarsinh came there and Agarsinh asked Narsinhbhai as to what happened to which Narsinhbhai responded that he had been attacked by the 'Odes'. After the incident she went to Narsinhbhai and offered him some water. Narsinhbhai's hands and legs had been broken and that he had sustained injuries on his head. When she was offering water to Narsinhbhai, Bhupatbhai, Chandubhai, Agarsinh came there and Agarsinh asked Narsinhbhai as to what happened to which Narsinhbhai responded that he had been attacked by the 'Odes'. Agarsinh came with a rickshaw and Narsinhbhai was taken to Dholka dispensary. According to this witness, she had seen the accused attacking Narsinhbhai when she was at the field cutting grass. 9.1 In her cross examination, this witness states that the fields are fenced and the fences are of the same height as of any normal human being. The scene of the incident was at least one field after the place where she was cutting grass and from the field where she was in a crouching position cutting grass she was not in a position to see the road. On both sides of the road, there were bushes. When in a crouching position cutting grass it is only the bushes that are visible on the road. She heard the sound of the motor apparently which was the bus which had stopped. It stopped for about 5-10 minutes when she heard Narsinhbhai shouting. When she ran towards Narsinhbhai, he was being attacked by the people standing there. She stood there for sometime. According to this witness, Narsinhbhai told her that 7 people 'Odes' had attacked him with sticks. Bhupatbhai arrived on hearing Pankhuben's shouts. Bhupatbhai asked Narsinhbhai as to what had happened. After sometime, Chandubhai and Agarbhai arrived. She did not see any Bharwads at the scene of offence. It was Govindbhai Shankarbhai coming towards the road. He thereafter turned back and went towards the village. The police had recorded her statement 12 days after the incident. 10. Bhupatbhai Maganbhai has been examined as P.W. 8 at Ex. 33. He was on his field when the incident occurred. There was a bus which was proceeding from Kadipur to Dholka. He saw the bus stopping on the road. Accused Nos. 1 and 2 and deceased Narsinhbhai got down from the bus. The accused Nos. 1 and 2 had sticks in their hands. Accused Nos. 3 to 7 were waiting at a distance in a pit. He identified accused Nos. 3 to 7 in the court. He saw the bus stopping on the road. Accused Nos. 1 and 2 and deceased Narsinhbhai got down from the bus. The accused Nos. 1 and 2 had sticks in their hands. Accused Nos. 3 to 7 were waiting at a distance in a pit. He identified accused Nos. 3 to 7 in the court. Govindbhai Shankarbhai was at that point of time coming from the village. The accused after attacking Narsinhbhai ran towards Sarathi. 10.1 This witness was cross examined. The suggestion that he was not present at his field was denied by him. He admitted that on both sides of the road, there were fields and that he had seen the accused Nos. 1 and 2 get down with Narsinhbhai. He did not see the accused No. 5 Kalabhai get down from the bus. The bus had stopped for about 3 - 4 minutes. The conductor and the driver did not get down from the bus. When Narsinhbhai was dragged and was shouting, this witness ran towards the bus but did not proceed further as he was scared. After the incident, he went home. The police came to record the statement on the next day but did not record his statement. He did not inform the police that he had seen the incident. 11. Dr. Chhatrasinh Barad, the doctor who carried out the post mortem of deceased Narsinhbhai on 25.06.1992 has been examined as P.W. 4 at Ex. 26. The injuries sustained by the deceased have been narrated in the post mortem report as under: "(1) Incised wound on right parietal region 1 1/2 " x 1/2 "x muscle deep. (2) Incised wound on left parietal region 1" x 1/2 "x muscle deep. 26. The injuries sustained by the deceased have been narrated in the post mortem report as under: "(1) Incised wound on right parietal region 1 1/2 " x 1/2 "x muscle deep. (2) Incised wound on left parietal region 1" x 1/2 "x muscle deep. (3) Abrasion on right upper arm laterally 1/4 "x 1/4 " x # humerus present (4) Wheel mark on left thigh medially - 3"x1"x bluish red in colour (5) Contused lacerated wound on right knee joint anteriorly 1/2 " x 1/2 " x patella (6) Contused lacerated wound on right leg upper 1/3 medially 1/2 " x 1/2 " x # tibia (7) Abrasion on right leg laterally 1" x 1" (8) Abrasion on left knee joint anteriorly 1" x 1" (9) Abrasion on left leg below wound No. 8 1/2 " x 1/2 " (10) Abrasion on left leg below wound No. 9 1/2 " x 1/2 " (11) Abrasion on left leg below wound No. 10 1/2 " x 1/2 " (12) Abrasion above left ankle joint anteriorly 1/2 " x 1/4 " (13) Abrasion on left leg laterally middle 1/2 " x 1/2 " (14) Abrasion on left iliac crest 1/4 " x 1/4 " (15) Abrasion on left leg below wound No. 8 1/2 " x 1/2 " (16) Abrasion on left upper arm laterally 1" x 1/2 " (17) Abrasion on left elbow joint laterally 1/4 " x 1/4 " deformity present # Humerus (18) Abrasion on left iliac 1" x 1" bluish red in colour" 11.1 All the injuries were ante-mortem. According to the version of this witness, the cause of death was due to hemorrhagic shock produced by multiple fractures in the limbs. This witness has stated that such injuries could have been caused by a hard and blunt substance. He stated that such injuries could be caused by sticks which were iron jacketed. All the injuries together were sufficient to cause death. He admitted in his cross examination that the injuries No. 1 and 2 could be sustained by sharp edged instrument like a sword or dharia or a knife and that such injuries cannot be sustained as a result of being attacked with by sticks. Each injury on its own was not sufficient enough to cause death. He admitted in his cross examination that the injuries No. 1 and 2 could be sustained by sharp edged instrument like a sword or dharia or a knife and that such injuries cannot be sustained as a result of being attacked with by sticks. Each injury on its own was not sufficient enough to cause death. That when the body was brought for post mortem there was no dressing or the body was not in bandages. According to this witness, the injuries that were caused had been by two kinds of weapons. Injury Nos. 1 and 2 could have been caused by a knife. 12. P.W. 15 - Mehmood Gulamhussain Chopda was the Investigating Officer who initially carried out the investigation. Nothing substantial needs to be elaborated on the testimony of this witness who is examined at Ex. 52. 13. P.W. 17- Udayrajsinh Chandrabhansinh Thakur was examined at Ex. 54. He is the officer who took over as the Investigating Officer from P.W. 15- Mehmood Gulamhussain Chopda. According to P.W. 17, it was on 07.07.1992 that he recorded the statements of driver, conductor of the bus and other witnesses. P.W. 6 - Nazmaben's statement was recorded on 08.07.1992. 13.1 In the cross examination, the Investigating Officer states that Pankhuben in her police statement had feigned ignorance as to who had attacked Narsinhbhai. That she had in her police statement not named any of the accused. He further pointed out that Pankhuben in her statement did not say that she had seen the accused attacking Narsinhbhai. He further in his cross examination states that even Govindbhai in his police statement had not stated that when he had seen accused Nos. 1 and 2 with sticks, Pankhuben was at their field and that Bhupatbhai was also standing at the opposite end. The Investigating Officer further in his cross examination states that when the statement of P.W. 5 - Kantibhai Ishwarbhai was recorded, he had initially stated that Narsinhbhai had taken out a knife and attacked Laljibhai. The Investigating Officer in the latter part of his cross examination admits that the fact that knife was used was revealed in the investigation but such knife was not recovered. 14. This is the evidence on record. The Investigating Officer in the latter part of his cross examination admits that the fact that knife was used was revealed in the investigation but such knife was not recovered. 14. This is the evidence on record. On appreciation of this evidence, the learned Sessions Judge by the order under challenge acquitted all the accused, finding that the testimonies of the witnesses particularly that of the complainant Chandubhai, Pankhuben, Govindbhai, Agarsinhbhai and Bhupatbhai were in contradictions because there were exaggerations in their testimonies. Implication of the accused in the offence in question was sought to be done by the testimonies of these witnesses which in fact on a close reading revealed that the versions of the so called eye witnesses namely Pankhuben and Bhupatbhai were not believable. Even the evidence of Govindbhai who was not an eye witness but had seen the accused boarding the bus with the deceased, was not credible enough to bring home the charge of section 302 read with sections 147, 148 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code. His testimony at best was in the nature of circumstantial evidence which only is of limited value of the deceased and the accused Nos. 1 and 2 boarding the bus. 15. On reading the complaint at Ex. 23, Chandubhai, the complainant in the complaint only names the accused Nos. 1 and 2 namely Laljibhai and Manilal. He further states that said accused Nos. 3 and 4 were involved in the incident in question. When this complaint is read in the context of the testimonies of this witness examined as P.W. 1 at Ex. 22, in the chief examination, this witness expands and brings in other accused being accused Nos. 3 to 7, additionally 3 accused apart from the 4 accused who he had named in the FIR. According to his version in the examination-in-chief, he states that all the 5 accused except accused Nos. 1 and 2 were standing when Narsinhbhai alighted from the bus. Accused Nos. 3 to 7 thereafter attacked him. Contradictions have come out in his cross examination inasmuch as he has not stated in the police statements that both Pankhuben and Bhupatbhai were present when the incident occurred. This is though in the complaint he had stated that Pankhuben had come with him at the scene of the incident. Accused Nos. 3 to 7 thereafter attacked him. Contradictions have come out in his cross examination inasmuch as he has not stated in the police statements that both Pankhuben and Bhupatbhai were present when the incident occurred. This is though in the complaint he had stated that Pankhuben had come with him at the scene of the incident. It is an admitted position that in his cross examination he has stated that the roads were not clearly visible from the field as a result of the bushes that bordered the roads. Moreover, he admits in his cross examination that it is only in the further statement that he stated that he was brought down from the bus by the accused Nos. 1 and 2. This, he admits was not stated by him in the complaint. 16. In light of the version of the complainant, if Pankhuben's testimony is examined, her testimony also does not inspire confidence in view of the fact that though she stated in her examination-in-chief that when Narsinhbhai was being attacked she had seen the accused at the scene of the offence with sticks attacking Narsinhbhai. That this fact has not been stated in the police statement has been proved through the testimony of the Investigating Officer that such facts were not stated by Pankhuben in her police statement. In her cross examination, she has admitted that the field where she was working was fenced and the road was at a distance of at least one field after the field on which she was working. She was in a crouching position and therefore the road where the bus had stopped was not clearly visible. That she had reached the scene of the incident is also not a credible statement in view of the fact that even the complainant has in is cross examination admitted that there a contradiction inasmuch as where she had accompanied the complainant is not clear. She in her cross examination has stated that even Agarsinh and Bhupatbhai had come later in point of time. P.W. 3 - Govindbhai is a witness whose testimony at best can be used not as that of an eye witness but only of a circumstantial evidence of having seen the accused Nos. 1 and 2 board the bus in the company of Narsinhbhai - the deceased. 17. P.W. 3 - Govindbhai is a witness whose testimony at best can be used not as that of an eye witness but only of a circumstantial evidence of having seen the accused Nos. 1 and 2 board the bus in the company of Narsinhbhai - the deceased. 17. The Investigating Officer in his cross examination has clearly admitted that credibility of this witness is at stake in view of the contradictions which have come out in his testimony vis-à-vis the testimony of P.W. 3 - Govindbhai. P.W. 13 - Agarsinhbhai has also not been believed by the learned Judge in view of the fact that several exaggerations have come forth in his testimony when read in light of the testimony of the complainant, the other eye witnesses Pankhuben and Bhupatbhai. 17.1 The passengers who were in the bus namely P.W. 5 - Kantibhai and P.W. 6 - Nazmaben have in their statements not brought out clearly as to the number of passengers who were travelling in the bus and when the bus stopped that the accused Nos. 1 and 2 in fact dragged the deceased down from the bus. Nazmaben's testimony cannot be relied upon particularly when though in the cross examination it has come on record that she did not alight from the bus and change of seat in the bus she has stated in her testimony she has stated in her testimony that a number of passengers alighted from the bus when the bus stopped briefly. Nazma's testimony therefore lacks credibility as it is difficult to believe that whether in fact she was a passenger in the bus. 18. P.W. 7 - Hirabhai Makwana, the conductor of the bus who has been examined at Ex. 32 has stated that the bus stopped as a result of threatening that the accused Nos. 1 and 2 gave to the driver. Contradiction has been pointed out by Mr. Pratik Barot, learned advocate for the accused by taking us to the testimony of P.W. 17, the Investigating Officer which in fact indicates that the entire version as narrated by P.W. 5 - Kantibhai in his examination-in-chief do not lead us to believe the version as narrated by Hirabhai. Contradiction has been pointed out by Mr. Pratik Barot, learned advocate for the accused by taking us to the testimony of P.W. 17, the Investigating Officer which in fact indicates that the entire version as narrated by P.W. 5 - Kantibhai in his examination-in-chief do not lead us to believe the version as narrated by Hirabhai. It is evident from the contradictions as have come out from the testimony of the Investigating Officer that Hirabhai, the conductor, in his police statement had stated that the bus slowed down and only three passengers got down from the moving bus. This therefore makes it evident that the testimony of the conductor also suffers from exaggerations and has not been rightly believed by the Learned Judge. 19. P.W. 17, the Investigating Officer has in his cross examination brought out the contradictions in the testimonies of the witnesses namely those of Pankhuben, Bhupatbhai, Govindbhai and that of the complainant so also those of the passengers Nazmaben and the conductor of the bus Hirabhai Makwana. 20. The medical evidence which has come on record may lead us to believe that the injuries sustained as a result of the incident were certainly serious enough. However, even the doctor has been unsure of the fact that whether the nature of injuries the deceased sustained were as a result of blow sustained by stick or as a result of sharp edged instruments i.e. knife or a sword or dharia. 21. Mr. Pratik Barot, learned advocate for the accused has placed reliance on the judgments of the Apex court in the case of Harbeer Singh v. Sheeshpal and Others reported in 2016(10) SCALE 211 to support his contention that when there are material omissions amounting to contradictions and when the learned Judge has awarded acquittal, this court should not substitute the acquittal which has strengthened the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused. 22. Mr. Barot further relied upon another judgment in the case of Raj Singh v. State of Haryana etc reported in 2015 SAR (Criminal) 678 to support his contention that the appellate court should not interfere with the order of acquittal when it is not the case that the court below has ignored or overlooked important circumstances or has misapplied the principles of criminal jurisdiction. 23. 23. Having independently appreciated the evidence on record and having found that the testimonies of witnesses suffer from serious contradictions and material omissions which have been brought out on record through the Investigating Officer, P.W. 17, we see no reason why we need to substitute the view taken by the learned Judge in acquitting the accused. 24. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed. The judgment and order dated 02.04.1994 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural) in Sessions Case No. 8 of 1993 is confirmed. Bail bond, if any, shall stand cancelled. R & P to be transferred to the trial court forthwith.