- (1.) The present appeal has been filed by the appellants under Section 374 of the Criminal Procedure Code, against the judgment and order dated 13.6.1997 passed by learned Additional City Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad in Sessions Case No. 14 of 1994, whereby the appellants-accused were convicted for the offence under Sections 306 of the Indian Penal Code (herein after referred to as "IPC" for short). By the impugned judgment the appellants were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and ordered to pay Rs. 1,000/- fine and in default of payment of fine, simple imprisonment for a period of one month was imposed.
(2.) The case of the prosecution in short is that the accused made false allegations of theft against the deceased who was the neighbour and a distant relative and it is alleged that the accused were quarreling with her in that respect, and therefore, the deceased committed suicide. It is alleged that the hut of the accused was under repairs and therefore the household articles were put in the house of the deceased who was a distant relative and the neighbour. It is alleged that after about 15 days the accused took back the said articles, however, one Gold Ring and Clock were found missing and the accused suspected that the deceased had committed theft of the same. It is further alleged that five days prior to the incident, at the instance of the accused, the deceased and her husband had gone to a Exorcist, who had told that some one from the house of the accused had taken away the articles and further told that the deceased and her husband were innocent. It is alleged that thereafter also the accused continued quarreling with the deceased. It is alleged that the deceased was disgusted and on 31.5.1993 at about-6.45 p.m. committed suicide by pouring kerosene and setting herself on fire. Therefore, the complaint was lodged with the police. 2.1 Investigation was carried out and charge sheet came to be filed against the accused in the Court of learned Magistrate. As the case was sessions triable the same was committed to the Court of Sessions. Thereafter, charge came to be framed and explained to the accused, to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 2.2 In order to bring home the charges against the accused, prosecution has examined following witnesses: 2.3 The prosecution has also produced on record documentary evidence in the form of panchnama of the scene of offence, panchnama of the muddamal, inquest panchnama, complaint, etc. 2.4 Thereafter, after filing of closing purshis by the prosecution, further statements of accused persons under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 were recorded. The accused have denied the case of the prosecution and submitted that a false case is filed against them. 2.5 At the conclusion of trial and after appreciating the oral as well as documentary evidence, the learned Judge vide impugned judgment, convicted the appellants-accused. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said judgment and order of conviction dated 13.6.1997 passed by learned Additional City Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad in Sessions Case No. 14 of 1994, the appellants-accused have preferred the present appeal before this Court.
(3.) It is submitted by Mr. K.J. Panchal, learned advocate for the appellants that the judgment of the learned Additional City Sessions Judge is quite erroneous on facts as well as on law. He also submitted that the learned Sessions Judge has not appreciated the evidence on record according to the well settled principles of Criminal Jurisprudence. He further submitted that the Court below has failed to appreciate that there were many glaring and serious infirmities in the case of prosecution which have been very lightly brushed aside by the learned Judge which has caused failure of justice. He also submitted that the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned trial Judge is contrary to law, against the express provisions of statute and against the evidence on record. He also submitted that the learned trial Judge ought to have considered the fact that the prosecution has failed to prove the offence under Section 306 of IPC and he therefore ought to have acquitted the accused. He further submitted that the learned Judge ought to have appreciated the fact that taking the prosecution case to be true and correct, no offence under Sec. 306 of IPC is made out against the accused.;