STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. BHEMDAS MOHMANDAS SADHU
LAWS(GJH)-2009-10-92
HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT
Decided on October 01,2009

STATE OF GUJARAT Appellant
VERSUS
BHEMDAS MOHMANDAS SADHU Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

STATE OF GOA V. SANJAY THAKRAN AND ANR. [REFERRED TO]
GIRIJANANDINI DEVI VS. BIJENDRA NARAIN CHOUDHARY [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF KARNATAKA VS. HEMAREDDY ALIAS VEMAREDDY [REFERRED TO]
M.S. NARAYANA MENON @ MANI VS. STATE OF KERALA AND ANR. [REFERRED TO]
CHANDRAPPA VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [REFERRED TO]
GIRJA PRASAD VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH VS. RAM VEER SINGH [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)THIS appeal, under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is directed against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 29. 12. 1989 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Banaskantha, in Sessions Case No. 138 of 1988, whereby, the accused has been acquitted from the charges leveled against him.
(2.)THE brief facts of the prosecution case are as under:
2. 1 The complainant named Samuben got married to one Laxmandas Bhemudas some where in the year 1983. On 24. 08. 1988, while the complainant was doing the household work at that time the respondent-accused, who is the father-in-law of the complainant, tortured her for not doing the household work properly and thereafter, poured kerosene on her and set her ablaze. 2. 2 Therefore a complaint with respect to the aforesaid offence was filed against the respondent with Radhanpur Police Station, which was registered as C. R. I-No. 107 of 1988. Necessary investigation was carried out and statements of several witnesses were recorded. During the course of investigation, as sufficient material was found against the respondent, he was arrested and, ultimately, charge-sheet was filed against him before the Court of learned JMFC, Radhanpur. As the case was exclusively triable by the Sessions Court, the same was committed to the Sessions Court, Palanpur and it was numbered as Sessions Case No. 138 of 1988. 2. 3 On production of the respondent, charge was framed but as the accused pleaded not guilty to the charge levelled against him, trial was initiated against the respondent. During the course of trial, the prosecution has examined eleven witnesses viz. PW-1 Manubhai Balvat at Exhibit-6, PW-2 Ramanlal Madhvlal at Exhibit-9, PW-3 T. M. Sadhu at Exhibit-11, PW-4 R. M. Sadhu at Exhibit-12, PW-5 Santaben M. at Exhibit-13, PW-6 Mafatlal Karshan at Exhibit-14, PW-7 Ramaji Navaji at Exhibit-15, PW-8 Savrupsingh Sivji at Exhibit-17, PW-9 Vahtabhai Raja at Exhibit-18, PW-10 Nathusingh Godad at Exhibit-23 and PW-11 B. C. Gadhvi at Exhibit-14. 2. 4 The prosecution had placed reliance upon several documentary evidence, more particularly, the dying declaration marked as Mark-5/6, the dying declaration at Exhibit-8, the PM note at Exhibit-10, the panchnama of the scene of offence at Exhibit-16, the inquest panchnama at Exhibit-21, the complaint dated 24. 08. 88 at Exhibit-25. At the end of trial and after recording the statement of the accused under Section 313 of Cr. P. C. , the learned Sessions Judge acquitted the respondent of all the charges leveled against him, by impugned judgment and order dated 29. 12. 1989. 2. 5 Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment and order passed by the Sessions Court, the appellant - State has preferred the present appeal.

(3.)IT was contended by learned APP that the judgment and order of the Court below is against the provisions of law; the Court below has not properly considered the evidence led by the prosecution and that looking to the provisions of law itself, it is established that the prosecution has proved the ingredients of the offence against the present respondent. Learned APP has also taken this Court through the oral as well as the documentary evidence available on record. 3. 1 The learned counsel for the respondent-accused, has submitted that the prosecution had failed to establish the guilt of the respondent beyond doubt. He has submitted that on close scrutiny of the evidence of the witnesses, it is evident that the same do not support the case of the prosecution. Hence, the Court below was completely justified in acquitting the respondent and no interference is called for from this Court in this appeal.


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.