Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 118 (GUJ)

State of Gujarat v. Tulsigiri Mohangiri Goswami

2020-01-21

A.P.THAKER, S.R.BRAHMBHATT

body2020
JUDGMENT : A. P. THAKER, J. 1. The appellant-State of Gujarat has preferred this appeal under Section 378 (1) (3) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 13.8.2013 passed by learned 6th Additional Sessions Judge, Bhuj-Kutch in Sessions Case No.4 of 2012, whereby the accused-respondent herein came to be acquitted of the charge of offence punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. It is the case of the prosecution that on 10.8.2011 at about 3.15 hours, injured Narendrapuri came at the tea stall of prosecution witness Vinaben Jitendrabhai Thakkar, situated near Main Gate, G.K.General Hospital, Opp. Jal Sevanagar Gate, obtained mobile of Vinaben, the owner of the tea stall and called respondent for having a cup of tea. According to the prosecution case, both had taken tea and thereafter respondent asked injured Narendrapuri about keeping relation with Vinaben and thereby raised quarrel with injured Narendrapuri and inflicted knife blow on left side of back with clear intention to cause death. Therefore, Mahespuri Goswami, who is father of injured Narendrapuri lodged complaint before Police Inspector, Kutch-Bhuj Police Station for alleged incident, which was registered as CR No.I-229/2011 for the offence under Section 307 of IPC and investigation machinery was put into motion. 2.1 During the course of investigation, police recorded statement of witnesses, drawn necessary panchnama and as there was sufficient evidence connecting respondent with crime in this case, charge sheet was filed before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Bhuj and numbered as Criminal Case No.1994 of 2011. Since the offence is triable exclusively by the Court of Sessions, the case was committed to the Court of 6th Additional Sessions Judge, Bhut-Kutch and numbered as Sessions Case No.4 of 2012. Thereafter, charge was framed against the accused and the accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed to be tried. 2.2 During trial, the prosecution has examined witnesses and produced documentary evidence on record. After completion of trial, learned Judge acquitted the accused for the offence, as aforesaid. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said judgment and order of acquittal dated 13.8.2013 passed by learned 6th Additional Sessions Judge, Bhuj-Kutch in Sessions Case No.4 of 2012, present appeal is preferred by the appellant-State of Gujarat challenging the impugned judgment and order. 3. After completion of trial, learned Judge acquitted the accused for the offence, as aforesaid. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said judgment and order of acquittal dated 13.8.2013 passed by learned 6th Additional Sessions Judge, Bhuj-Kutch in Sessions Case No.4 of 2012, present appeal is preferred by the appellant-State of Gujarat challenging the impugned judgment and order. 3. Ms.Krina Calla, learned APP appearing for the appellant has submitted that the impugned order of acquittal passed by learned trial Court is contrary to evidence on record and learned trial Judge has failed to appreciate the evidence of injured Narendrapuri Maheshpuri Goswami and the history given by him before Medical Officer. She also submitted that the case of the prosecution is supported by the evidence of father of the injured, who has stated that he has received mobile from Vinaben, whereby she has informed that Tulshigiri gave knife blow to the injured. She has submitted that Vinaben Jitendrakumar Thakkar has stated in her evidence at Exh.29 that quarrel had taken place between the injured Narendrapuri and the accused-Tulshigiri. She also stated that learned trial Judge has erred in holding that looking to the evidence of Vinaben, it is clear that the injured was in drunken condition and he was armed with knife and he himself has called the accused for having tea. She further submitted that even as per the deposition of Dr.Manikant Mishra, Exh.32, he has stated that when the injured came to him for treatment, he has narrated the history wherein it is stated that the accused Tulsigiri had caused the injuries with knife. She has also submitted that learned trial Judge has not properly appreciated FSL report and serological report. She, therefore, prayed to allow present appeal by reversing the finding of the trial Court and convicting the accused for the offence under Section 307 of IPC. 4. Mr.J.M.Buddhbhatti, learned advocate for the respondent-accused supported the impugned judgment and submitted that learned trial Judge has not committed any error in acquitting the accused from the charge of offence alleged against him. He submitted that the trial Court has properly appreciated the evidence on record. 4. Mr.J.M.Buddhbhatti, learned advocate for the respondent-accused supported the impugned judgment and submitted that learned trial Judge has not committed any error in acquitting the accused from the charge of offence alleged against him. He submitted that the trial Court has properly appreciated the evidence on record. He submitted that, as per the evidence of the complainant, he was informed by Vinaben about the incident and, thereafter, he went to the hospital and as per the information given by his son, he has lodged the complaint at about 5.30 p.m. on 10.8.2011, however, as per the evidence of the doctor, the injured was brought to him at about 3.30 p.m. where he was given emergency treatment for half an hour, thereafter, the injured was in operation theater for three hours and during this time nobody met the injured. Therefore, it is clear that during this time the complainant did not meet the injured and there is no question of his giving complaint at 5.30 p.m. as per the information given by the injured. He further submitted that even as per the evidence of investigation officer, the complainant himself gave the complaint at Exh.31 and thereafter, Dr.Mishra had given Janva Jog entry with Bhuj City Police Station. However, Janva Jog is registered at 4 p.m. while the complaint is given at 5.30 p.m. therefore, there is contradiction even with regard to lodging of complaint with police. He also submitted that even as per the medical evidence, it is established that blood sample of the accused was not sent for analysis, and it could not be established that the accused has committed the offence. He also submitted that as the accused was an eye witness in the case of murder of son of the complainant and as his evidence could not help the complainant in that case, it seems that the accused is wrongly implicated in the present case by the complainant. He also submitted that in case of acquittal, there is a double presumption in favour of the accused. Firstly, the presumption of innocence available to him under the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that every person should be presumed to be innocent unless he is proved to be guilty by a competent court of law. Secondly, the accused having secured an acquittal, the presumption of his innocence is certainly not weakened but reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by the trial Court. Secondly, the accused having secured an acquittal, the presumption of his innocence is certainly not weakened but reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by the trial Court. In support of his submission, he has relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Chandrappa and Others v. State of Karnataka reported in 2007 Cr.L.R. (SC) 364, wherein it is observed as under:- “15. Bare reading of Section 378 of the present Code (Appeal in case of acquittal) quoted above, makes it clear that no restrictions have been imposed by the Legislature on the powers of the appellate Court in dealing with appeals against acquittal. When such an appeal is filed, the High Court has full power to re-appreciate, review and reconsider the evidence at large, the material on which the order of acquittal is founded and to reach its own conclusions on such evidence. Both questions of fact and of law are open to determination by the High Court in an appeal against an order of acquittal. 16. It cannot, however, be forgotten that in case of acquittal, there is a double presumption in favour of the accused. Firstly, the presumption of innocence available to him under the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that every person should be presumed to be innocent unless he is proved to be guilty by a competent court of law. Secondly, the accused having secured an acquittal, the presumption of his innocence is certainly not weakened but reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by the trial Court. …. 42. From the above decisions, in our considered view, the following general principles regarding powers of appellate Court while dealing with an appeal against an order of acquittal emerge; (1) An appellate Court has full power to review, re-appreciate and reconsider the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded; (2) The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 puts no limitation, restriction or condition on exercise of such power and an appellate Court on the evidence before it may reach its own conclusion, both on questions of fact and of law; (3) Various expressions, such as, 'substantial and compelling reasons', 'good and sufficient grounds', 'very strong circumstances', 'distorted conclusions', 'glaring mistakes', etc. are not intended to curtail extensive powers of an appellate Court in an appeal against acquittal. are not intended to curtail extensive powers of an appellate Court in an appeal against acquittal. Such phraseologies are more in the nature of 'flourishes of language' to emphasize the reluctance of an appellate Court to interfere with acquittal than to curtail the power of the Court to review the evidence and to come to its own conclusion. (4) An appellate Court, however, must bear in mind that in case of acquittal, there is double presumption in favour of the accused. Firstly, the presumption of innocence available to him under the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that every person shall be presumed to be innocent unless he is proved guilty by a competent court of law. Secondly, the accused having secured his acquittal, the presumption of his innocence is further reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by the trial court. (5) If two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the appellate court should not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial court.” 4.1 In view of all these, he prayed to dismiss present appeal. 5. Heard learned advocates appearing for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. On perusal of the evidence of the injured, Narendrapuri Maheshpuri Goswami, Ex.15, it is found that he has narrated the happening of the events and has stated that on the date of incident, he was standing near gate of Emergency Gate of G.K.General Hospital, Bhuj, and there was a tea stall run by one Vinaben. According to him, he has called the present accused from the mobile of Vinaben at the tea stall of Vinaben and due to that the accused came in his rickshaw and both have taken tea and, thereafter, there was some hot exchange of words between them and this has happened due to his relation with Vinaben. He has stated that he had relation with Vinaben and, therefore, the accused asked him to stop it. Due that, after hot exchange of words, the accused has inflicted knife blow on his left side of the body and due to that his intestine came out. At that time, other rickshawwalas gathered there and, thereafter he was taken for treatment in the hospital. He has also deposed that Vinaben has informed his father regarding the accused having inflicted knife blow on him. At that time, other rickshawwalas gathered there and, thereafter he was taken for treatment in the hospital. He has also deposed that Vinaben has informed his father regarding the accused having inflicted knife blow on him. It is his version that thereafter the accused ran away from the scene of offence and his parents came to the hospital and the complaint was filed by his father. He has also deposed that police has recorded his statement and has also seized the clothes, which he was wearing at the time of the incident. 6.1 During his cross-examination, he has categorically stated that when his parents came there, his treatment was going on in emergency ward and his operation was going on and he was in operation theater for three hours. He has admitted that after getting history from him, the doctor called the police. He has stated that as drugs were administered to him, he was not fully conscious. He has also stated that he was panch witness in one criminal case and another criminal case is also going on against him. He has admitted that in past, he has consumed poison and, thereafter, he was admitted in hospital. He has denied the suggestion that due to Vinaben, he has consumed poison. According to him, as there was huge debt and others were harassing him, he consumed poison. He has also admitted that there were cases filed against him and one of them is filed by his wife. He has admitted that after his consuming poison, the persons who have lent him money have stopped to come. He has admitted that after the incidence his treatment was started by doctor immediately and he firstly narrated the facts before the doctor and doctor has called the police and the police has recorded his statement at that time. He has stated that, on the next date of incident, he has narrated the facts of the incident to police. He has also stated that he has relationship with Vinaben since last eight years and the accused was interfering with this relation. He has admitted that on the date of incident, he has called the accused from mobile of Vinaben though he himself had a mobile. He has denied the suggestion that he himself has inflicted knife blow on his body and police has recovered the same from him. He has admitted that on the date of incident, he has called the accused from mobile of Vinaben though he himself had a mobile. He has denied the suggestion that he himself has inflicted knife blow on his body and police has recovered the same from him. 6.2 He has also admitted that his brother Prakashgiri was murdered and in that case present accused was witness. He has stated that he has no idea as to whether the accused has turned hostile in that matter and due to that there was anmity between them. He has further stated that when his statement was recorded, her parents as well as sister and brother-in-law were present. 7. On perusal of the evidence of Nareshgiri Gulabgiri Goswami, Exh.16, it appears that he is panch witness regarding recovery of shirt of the injured for panchnama at Exh.17, has stated that police has taken signature regarding the statement that he has seen the entire incident. During his cross-examination, he has admitted that police has called him on the same date on which the incident has happened. He has stated that he does not know name of other panch. He has admitted that he has no idea as to what has been written down by the police and he has only stated before police that he had seen the incident. He has admitted that brother of the injured has been murdered and in that case present accused was witness. He has also admitted that since then there is no relation between present accused with injured witness. 8. On perusal of the evidence of panch witness, Shivji Tulsidas Bhanusali, Exh.18, it appears that he has only stated that his signature was obtained on writing by the police and nothing was carried out by police in his presence. As he has not supported the case of prosecution, he was declared hostile and he was cross-examined by the prosecution, however, in such cross-examination also he has not supported the case of the prosecution. 9. It appears from the evidence of Suleman Sumra, Exh.20, that he was called as panch by the police and with him there was one Gani Ibrahim. 9. It appears from the evidence of Suleman Sumra, Exh.20, that he was called as panch by the police and with him there was one Gani Ibrahim. According to him, the police has seized clothes of the accused and knife and brought those articles in the city police station, where his signature was taken and police told him that clothes and knife belongs to present accused and at that time present accused was not present there. Though he has admitted his signature on the panchnama at Exh.21, wherein it is narrated that the accused has produced the knife and his clothes, which he was wearing at the time of incident, he has not supported the version of the prosecution and he has been thoroughly cross-examined by the prosecution. However, in his evidence also he has not supported the version of the prosecution. During cross-examination on behalf of the accused, he has stated that he was called at about 8 p.m. in G.K.General Hospital and entire writing was prepared in the hospital. He has stated that he does not know as to who has dictated facts of the panchnama. He has admitted that the clothes were recovered before they reached the police station and he had no knowledge as to from whom the same were seized. He has stated that he does not know the accused Narendra. He has admitted that at the instance of police he has signed certain papers, but, he does not know as to how and for what purpose the police has obtained his signature. 10. Panch witness, Abdul Gani Ibrahim Kumbhar, Exh.22, has stated that police has called him opposite to the G.K.General Hospital and at that time, it was raining and when he reached there only policemen were there and thereafter police recorded his statement. He has admitted that there is signature on panchnama at Exh.23. 10.1 He has admitted in his cross-examination that there was no approved rickshaw stand near the place of occurrence. He has admitted that the complainant Narendragiri is a rickshaw driver. He has admitted that the place of incident was 10 to 12 ft. away from the place where he was standing. He has admitted that on the left side of the emergency gate of the hospital, there is highway of Bhuj-Madhapar and there is divider and thereafter, there is road of Madhapar to Bhuj. He has admitted that the place of incident was 10 to 12 ft. away from the place where he was standing. He has admitted that on the left side of the emergency gate of the hospital, there is highway of Bhuj-Madhapar and there is divider and thereafter, there is road of Madhapar to Bhuj. He has also admitted that there are Corporation Bank, HDFC Bank and other hospitals on this road. He has stated that he was called at about 11 a.m. for drawing panchnama and it was carried out for 20 to 25 minutes. He has stated that he was not called in the evening. He has admitted that it has not so happened that he was called at 5.40 p.m. He has admitted that if the panchnama is prepared from 5.40 to 6.15 p.m. and if there is his signature then that panchnama is prepared in his absence. He has admitted that on the panchnama at Exh.23, time shown is 17.40 to 18.15. He has specifically stated that if there is signature in this panchnama, this panchnama is not prepared in his presence. 11. It appears from the evidence of PW-6, Mukesh Popatbhai Gajjar, Exh.24, that he has not supported the prosecution version regarding preparation of panchnama at Exh.25 in his presence. He has turned hostile and he has been cross-examined by the prosecution but in such cross-examination also, he has not supported the basic version of the prosecution. 12. It appears from the evidence of PW-7, Mukesh Jethalal Thakkar at Exh.26 that he has not supported the version of the prosecution that panchnama at Exh.19 was prepared in his presence and he was present at the time of preparation of that panchnama. Of course, he has admitted that there is his signature as pach no.1 but he denied that this panchnama was prepared in his presence. Thus, he is also a hostile witness and prosecution has cross-examined him but nothing has come out from such cross-examination, which may be beneficial to the prosecution. 13. Of course, he has admitted that there is his signature as pach no.1 but he denied that this panchnama was prepared in his presence. Thus, he is also a hostile witness and prosecution has cross-examined him but nothing has come out from such cross-examination, which may be beneficial to the prosecution. 13. PW-8, Maheshpuri Babupuri Gusai, Exh.27, who is complainant has narrated that when the incident has happened, he along with his brother-in-law and nephew were at his home and at that time at 3.30 p.m., he received the message from mobile of Vinaben that Tulsigiri has inflicted knife blow on the body of his son and he is in hospital and, therefore, they all went to G.K.General Hospital, wherein his son was in emergency ward and his son told him that the accused has inflicted knife blow on his body. He has stated that due to relation of his son with Vinaben, some quarrel took place between his son and the accused. He has also stated that thereafter his son was taken away for operation and, thereafter he has filed the complaint before the police and police has taken his thumb impression on the complaint. 13.1 In his cross-examination, he has stated that he is knowing Vinaben since many years and he has not objected to the relationship of Vinaben with his son. He has admitted that Vinaben is widow and she has four children. He has admitted that he has attended the Court as a witness as well as the accused and there are two criminal cases pending against him, out of which one is filed by his wife. He denied the suggestion that there was a case of atrocity filed against him. He has also denied the suggestion that a case has been lodged against him for charging interest. He has admitted that before they reached the hospital, doctor had started treatment of his son and he was operated. He has stated that first wife of his son Narendragiri had died and Jalpa is his second wife. He has admitted that death of earlier wife of his son was unnatural death. He has denied the suggestion that she died due to their harassment. He has stated that first wife of his son Narendragiri had died and Jalpa is his second wife. He has admitted that death of earlier wife of his son was unnatural death. He has denied the suggestion that she died due to their harassment. He has admitted that his one son has been murdered and, in that case, present accused was witness for prosecution and as they had good relations, the accused became witness in that matter and he was eye witness. He has also admitted that his son Narendragiri has tried to commit suicide earlier also and as there were dues, he tried to commit suicide. 14. On perusal of the evidence of Vinaben Jitendra Thakkar, pw-9, Exh.29, it reveals that she has a tea stall opposite G.K.General Hospital, Bhuj, and she knows the accused and the injured. She has stated that she had relation with Narendrapuri i.e. the injured and she has stated that, on the date of incident, Narendrapuri was at his place and he was taking liquor and consumed two to three bags of liquor and, thereafter, from her mobile he had called present accused and used filthy language against him. Thereafter, the accused came at that place and there was a quarrel between them. She has stated that knife was with the injured Narendra and a scuffle took place. She did not see as to who has given knife blow to whom. There was injury of knife on the stomach of Narendrapuri and, thereafter, Narendrapuri was brought to G.K.General Hospital and she has sent message to the father of Narendrapuri. She has stated that on the same date in the evening, police has recorded her statement. As she has not supported the version of the prosecution, she has been declared as hostile by the prosecution and she has been confronted with narration made by her in the police statement but even in such cross-examination she has not supported the prosecution version. 14.1 During cross-examination on behalf the accused, she has stated that the accused was helping her in her business and this fact was not liked by the victim Narendrapuri. 14.1 During cross-examination on behalf the accused, she has stated that the accused was helping her in her business and this fact was not liked by the victim Narendrapuri. She has also stated that when her husband was alive, Narendrapuri used to come at her home and, thereafter, after death of her husband, she had relations with Narendrapuri and as wife of Narendrapuri came to know regarding her relationship with Narendrapuri she was beaten by them. She has also stated that due to relationship with Narendrapuri, she became pregnant and as she was beaten, there was miscarriage. She has admitted that due to beating by the wife of Narendrapuri, she got injury and, therefore, she was admitted in the hospital and she has filed complaint against Narendrapuri, his wife and father before police. She has admitted that during relationship with Narendrapuri whatever debt has occurred, the same was paid by the accused. She has admitted that before this incident Narendrapuri tried to commit suicide twice or thrice. She has admitted that on the date and place of incident, Narendrapuri had quarrel with one Darbar. She has admitted that she has not seen the incident of inflicting of injury. She has stated that she does not know as to who has inflicted the knife blow on Narendrapuri. 15. PW-10, Gafur Harun Sama, Exh.30 who is stated to be an eye witness to the incident, has not supported the prosecution version and has stated that he has not seen the entire incident as at that time he went to the house for lunch. Thus, he being hostile, the prosecution has cross-examined him regarding his statement before police. However, in such cross-examination also he has not supported the basic version of the prosecution. 16. Similarly, PW-11, Anand Jitendrabhai Thakkar, Exh.31, who is alleged to be an eye witness, has not supported basic version of the prosecution and the prosecution has cross-examined him after declaring him as hostile, but in such cross-examination also he has not supported the basic version. However, during cross-examination on behalf of the accused, he has stated that he does not know regarding incident and when he returned back to his cabin he did not see Tulsigiri as well as Narendrapuri nor he has heard regarding quarrel between them. 17. However, during cross-examination on behalf of the accused, he has stated that he does not know regarding incident and when he returned back to his cabin he did not see Tulsigiri as well as Narendrapuri nor he has heard regarding quarrel between them. 17. Dr.Manikant Shrinath Mishra, PW-12, Exh.32, in his evidence has stated that on 10.8.2011 he was on duty in G.K.General Hospital, Bhuj and at that time, at about 3.30 p.m. Narendrapuri Maheshpuri was brought for treatment and it was found that there was stab wound over left mid abdomen approximately 3 cm. X 2 cm. X cavity deep and intestine came out from the wound. It is his version that the injury is one hour old and it could be done by knife and injury was grievous. He has also stated that he was immediately operated. According to him, if any complication does not arise then it may heal within three to four weeks. He has also stated that on the same day, he has taken blood sample of injured and sent it to police. During his cross-examination, he has stated that the injured was with him for half an hour for treatment and he has not operated him. He has stated that one and a half hour may have taken for operation and anasthesia was administered to the victim and there is no name of doctor administering anesthesia in Exh.33 certificate. He has stated that in the present case, the victim might be under influence of anesthesia for almost two and a half hours. He has stated that there is no signature of doctor, who is operated the victim, in Exh.33. He has admitted that injury stated in Exh.33 can be inflicted by concerned person himself. He has admitted that after his treatment nobody came before him nor anybody met the victim during that period. 18. On perusal of the evidence of Harpalsinh Zala, PW-13, Exh.35, it appears that he was on duty as PSO and has received the complaint, which was narrated before PI, Shri Desai, and accordingly, he registered the same in the register. During his cross-examination, he has admitted that if any person directly comes to the police station for filing complaint, then it is immediately written in FIR register itself. He has admitted that, in the present case, FIR has not been registered in the Form No.154. During his cross-examination, he has admitted that if any person directly comes to the police station for filing complaint, then it is immediately written in FIR register itself. He has admitted that, in the present case, FIR has not been registered in the Form No.154. He has admitted that if the FIR is not recorded in Form 154, then if any information is reduced in writing then the facts of information with time and place is being written in appropriate register. He has admitted that as the complaint in this case is lodged before PI, Shri Desai, he himself cannot say as to who has narrated the facts. 19. On perusal of the evidence of Hirabhai Ramabhai Desai, PW-14, PW-56, it appears that at the relevant time he was serving as a Police Inspector in Bhuj City Police Station and during that period as he has received the information that Narendrapuri was admitted for treatment, he went to the hospital and one Maheshpuri Babugiri Goswami gave complaint before him and, therefore, it was reduced into writing and, thereafter, it was sent to PSO for registering the offence. He has stated that after lodging the complaint, doctor- Mishra from G.K.General Hospital has telephonically informed the police and on that basis Janvajog entry was made in the register. He has produced the copy thereof at Exh.38. He has also stated that copy of the dying declaration recorded by the Executive Magistrate was kept. He has also narrated the facts regarding preparation of various panchnama of recording of statements of the witnesses and recovery of knife and clothes of the accused as well as injured. He has also stated that he has got prepared the panchnama of scene of offence as well as he has arrested the accused and having found sufficient evidence submitted charge-sheet. During his chief examination, facts narrated in the statements of various witnesses, who have turned hostile, were proved. 19.1 During his cross-examination, he has stated that at the time of deposition he has read entire case and he has written down in summary note. He has admitted that during his investigation, it was found that there was injury on the left hand of the victim and the victim has placed thumb impression on the statement given to the Executive Magistrate as well as in the medical papers and the same is of the right hand thumb. He has admitted that during his investigation, it was found that there was injury on the left hand of the victim and the victim has placed thumb impression on the statement given to the Executive Magistrate as well as in the medical papers and the same is of the right hand thumb. He has admitted that the complaint was given before him but the same was not in his hand-writing. He has also admitted that after recording FIR he has sent to PSO, and thereafter, PSO sent the complaint to him for investigation. He has admitted that entire proceedings from taking the complaint till filing of charge-sheet was done by him. He has stated that in the present case injured was admitted in the hospital immediately and he was operated. According to him, he himself met the injured in the night from 8 to 9 p.m. He has admitted that the injured was not in a position to reply properly. He has admitted that the place of incident is on public road. He has admitted that there is no mention regarding place and time of taking the complaint. He has stated that he has not brought that station diary recording so-called Janva Jog entry. He has denied the suggestion that injury was inflicted by the injured himself and denied the suggestion that the complainant has produced the knife. He has admitted that he has not investigated as to from where the muddamal article i.e. knife was procured. He has denied the suggestion that he has written down the statement of the witnesses according to the complaint and he has obtained the signature of panchas on ready-made panchnama. 20. Considering the rival submissions and the evidence on record, as referred to above, and the documentary evidence placed on record, it reveals that the injured has got the injury on his left side abdomen and he was given treatment and thereafter he was operated. It also reveals from evidence of Vinaben that the victim has called the accused from the mobile of Vinaben. It also reveals that, at the relevant time, the accused and the victim were near tea stall of Vinaben and they both have taken tea and thereafter there was quarrel between them with regard to the relationship with Vinaben. It also reveals from evidence of Vinaben that the victim has called the accused from the mobile of Vinaben. It also reveals that, at the relevant time, the accused and the victim were near tea stall of Vinaben and they both have taken tea and thereafter there was quarrel between them with regard to the relationship with Vinaben. It also reveals from the evidence of Vinaben, of course she has been declared as hostile, that at the relevant time knife was with the victim and this fact has not been controverted by the prosecution, though she was declared as hostile. It also reveals from her evidence that on the day, there was quarrel with one Darbar and the victim. 21. It also reveals from the evidence on record that all the panchas are declared hostile and they have not supported the basic version of the prosecution case that the accused has voluntarily produced knife, which was used in the incident. It also reveals from the evidence on record that as per the version of the victim as well as doctor, he has informed the police, however, that message is not produced in this case and subsequent FIR filed by the father of the victim has been treated as FIR. If the doctor has sent a message regarding the injured having been brought to the hospital, then that document will be FIR. In this case no such documentary evidence has been produced on behalf of the prosecution. As per the evidence of the victim himself, he reached hospital within 15 minutes of the incident and he was referred to the emergency ward at 4 O’ clock and thereafter he was operated for almost three hours. In view of this fact, it is impossible to narrate anything to his father, who has lodged FIR. It is also pertinent to note that as per the evidence of the victim himself that due to operation and influence of medicines, he was not in conscious state of mind. Now, as per the complaint of the father, it is recorded at 5.30 p.m. on the basis of the facts narrated by the victim but the fact remains that during that point of time the victim was in unconscious state of mind. 22. Now, as per the complaint of the father, it is recorded at 5.30 p.m. on the basis of the facts narrated by the victim but the fact remains that during that point of time the victim was in unconscious state of mind. 22. It also reveals from the evidence on record that initially the accused was called by the complainant himself that too from mobile of Vinaben, though he himself was having mobile. This fact suggests that due to that action on the part of the victim the accused had come to the tea stall of Vinaben and thereafter there was hot exchange of words. Under these circumstances, it cannot be assumed that the accused has come with mens-rea to kill the victim. The evidence on record suggests that there was animosity between the parties. 23. On re-appreciation of entire evidence on record, it is crystal clear that the evidence of the victim does not inspire confidence. Further, the eye witnesses, referred to above, have not supported the case of the prosecution and the other witnesses, who have been examined on behalf of the prosecution, which include panchas have also not supported the case of the prosecution. Thus, evidence on record is not cogent and convincing for convicting the accused for the alleged offence. 24. On perusal of the impugned judgment of the trial Court, it clearly transpires that the trial Court has properly appreciated the entire evidence on record and has not committed any serious error of facts and law in acquitting the accused. Impugned judgment of the trial Court is sustainable in the eyes of law. 25. In view of above, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. The impugned Judgment and order dated 13.8.2013 passed by learned 6th Additional Sessions Judge, Bhuj-Kutch in Sessions Case No.4 of 2012, acquitting the respondent– accused, is hereby confirmed. Bail bond stands cancelled. Record and Proceedings be sent back to the trial Court concerned forthwith.