- (1.) The present appeal, under section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is directed against the judgement and order dated 07.09.1998 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Jamnagar in Sessions Case No. 55 of 1996 whereby the accused have been acquitted of the charges leveled against them.
(2.) The brief facts of the prosecution case are that accused no. 1 is the grandmother-in-law, accused no. 2 is the motherin-law and accused no. 3 is the father-in-law of the deceased and that they used to physically and mentally torture the deceased for dowry. It is the case of the prosecution that on 19.01.1996, at around 04.00 pm while the deceased was in the kitchen accused no. 3 asked the deceased as to why she had not got money from her father and accordingly a verbal argument took place between them. It is the case of the prosecution that the accused no. 3 got enraged and poured kerosene on her and accused no. 2 set her ablaze while accused no. 1 caught hold of her. The deceased was taken to hospital but she succumbed to the burn injuries. A complaint was therefore lodged against the accused. Pursuant to the complaint, investigation was carried out. After investigation, charge-sheet was filed and as the case was triable by the Court of Sessions, it was committed to the Court of Sessions. 2.1 The trial Court framed charge against the accused. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed to be tried. Therefore, the prosecution produced oral as well as documentary evidence. To prove the case against the accused, the prosecution has examined the following witnesses: JUDGEMENT_354_LAWS(GJH)3_2016.html
(3.) Ms. Pathak, learned APP appearing for the appellantState has submitted that the trial court committed an error in releasing the respondents-accused. It was contended by Ms. Pathak that the judgement and order of the Sessions Court is against the provisions of law; the Sessions Court has not properly considered the evidence led by the prosecution and looking to the provisions of law itself it is established that the prosecution has proved the whole ingredients of the evidence against the present respondents. Learned APP has also taken this court through the oral as well as the entire documentary evidence. 3.1 Ms. Pathak submitted that the trial court has not properly appreciated the fact that incident has taken place within a period of one year from her marriage and that there is sufficient evidence regarding demand of dowry. She submitted that the dying declaration given by the deceased is not considered in its true perspective. She submitted that considering the nature of injuries mentioned in column no. 17 and the fact that the deceased had sustained 90-95% burns, it can be said that the death of the deceased was a result of culpable homicide.;