At the time of the incident, some children were playing in the neighbourhood.
All the respondents were found guilty by the Addl.
It was submitted that the incident happened on 13.11.1985 but these two witnesses were questioned by the Investigation Officer only on 15.11.1985.
PW 11, who gave the FI statement deposed that he had seen the accused persons at the place of the incident.
No proper explanation was given by the Investigation Officer.
From the side of the prosecution, PW 7 and PW 4 were examined as eyewitnesses.
Accused number 5 was the paternal uncle of deceased Natwarlal Bhanubhai.
The High Court held that there were certain infirmities in the prosecution case, and hence the accused persons were number guilty of the offences charged against them.
The prosecution case was that on 13th November, 1985, all the accused formed themselves into an unlawful assembly and went to the house of the deceased and forcibly took him to a nearby Babul tree and caused him a series of injuries and he died on the spot.
1 is a brother of Accused No.
2 is the son in law of accused number 5.
On seeing the assault, they made a numberse and after hearing the numberse, PW 2, PW 3 and PW 11, the brother of the deceased came to the place of occurrence.
PW 7 is the widow of deceased and PW 4 is the son of the deceased.
Accused No.
The learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that PW 7 and PW 4 who claimed to be eyewitnesses cannot be believed for various reasons.
In the appeal filed by these respondents, the High Court was of the view that the prosecution failed to bring home their guilt.
WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.
PW 11 took the injured Natwarlal Bhanubhai to the Civil Hospital at Surat where the Doctor examined him and declared him to be dead.
Accused No.
Accused number 3 and accused number 4 are companysins of accused number 2.
1081 OF 1997 G. BALAKRISHANN, J. These two appeals arise from the same Judgment passed by the Division Bench of High Court of Gujarat whereby the respondents herein were acquitted of the charges framed against them under Sections 144, 148, 302 read with Section 149 and Section 135 of Bombay Police Act.
Among the five respondents, the 5th respondent passed away during the pendency of the appeals.
