K.S. Jhaveri, J. - (1.) Heard learned Advocates appearing for the respective parties.
(2.) By way of this Appeal, the Appellant - State has felt aggrieved by the judgment and order of acquittal dated 21.06.1991 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Vadodara in Sessions Case No. 43/1988 whereby the respondents were acquitted for the offences punishable under Ss. 302 read with Ss. 34 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code.
(3.) The case in brief is as under: - - "3.1. The respondent - accused No. 1 is the husband of the deceased, the accused No. 2 is the father -in -law of the deceased, the accused No. 3 is the mother -in -law of the deceased whereas the accused No. 4 is the Doctor. It is the case of the prosecution that the original accused No. 1 - Kanhaiyalal got married 12 years prior to the date of incident to the daughter of Bastiram - Kallu. From the past 3 -4 years prior to the date of incident, Kallu used to come and go to the house of accused No. 1. It is alleged that the accused No. 1 did not like Kallu and did not desire to keep any matrimonial relations with her. It is the case of the complainant that the original accused No. 1 -3 all used to live in Room No. 3 at Rakrishnan Building alongwith the sister of accused No. 1. The sister of accused No. 1 was married to one - Rajeshbhai Dhobi who lived at Shahibaug, Ahmedabad. In the middle room of the above said residence, the original accused No. 2 and 3 used to sleep in the room and in the gallery, Kallu used to sleep all alone. The original accused No. 1 used to sleep on the terrace and in the monsoon season, he used to sleep outside the room. 3.2. It is the case of the prosecution that on 05.11.1987, the original accused No. 1 got up early in the morning and came down to the room. It came to the knowledge of all from the past week that the wife of the accused No. 1 was pregnant by about three months. Hence, the accused No. 1 is alleged to have asked Kallu that 'when I did not have any sexual relations with you, then whose child are you carrying?'. To the above query, Kallu did not give any answer and there was a fight between the two of them for the past one week. On the said day, the accused No. 1 in the night, went to sleep on the terrace and the accused No. 2 and 3 slept in the middle room and Kallu went to sleep in the gallery. On the said day, the accused No. 1 got up early, came down and saw that the room was locked. The accused No. 3 had locked the room and went to buy milk. The accused No. 3 came, opened the room and went to pull the handpump for getting water in the kitchen. The accused No. 2 was still sleeping. The accused No. 1 then went straight to the gallery and at that juncture, Kallu was standing. All this occurred at about 5.00 in the morning. The tea stall on the road had not yet opened but a little traffic had commenced on the road. The accused No. 1 is alleged to have made Kallu sit near the rack and then asked her as to whose child was she carrying?, to which Kallu did not reply. This infuriated the accused No. 1 to such an extent that he tied a rope to the upper portion of the rack, made a curtain out of old sarees and put the curtain around the neck of Kallu, pulled the curtain hard with his two hands and tried to kill Kallu. Kallu shouted for help and was wildly gasping for breath and made frantic attempts to free herself from the violent grasp. The accused No. 1 with the force of his hands pushed down the face and nose of Kallu because of which the jaws of Kallu broke. Thereafter, it is alleged that the accused No. 1 without telling anybody about the incident left the place for 'dhobighaat'. The accused No. 2 and 3 with a common intention are alleged to have helped the accused No. 1 in the commission of the crime. The aunt of Kallu - Radhaben was called and the accused No. 1 had stated to her that Kallu had expired. All the family members had gathered and the accused No. 4 was called, who gave a Certificate stating the cause of death to be heart attack. The complainant herein who happens to be a relative of Kallu also went and looking at the scene of incident, it surfaced that the deceased was killed. 3.3. On the basis of the above, a complaint was filed on 05.11.1987 at about 10 am. The inquest panchnama was carried out and the body of the deceased was sent for post mortem. The Medical Officer opined that the cause of death was because of strangulation of neck and that the deceased was pregnant at the time of death. The investigation commenced. Charges were led against all the original accused under Ss. 302 read with Ss. 34 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code in the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class. Since it was a Sessions triable case, the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class committed the case to the Court of Sessions. 3.4. At the time of the trial, the prosecution examined about five witness and various documents. 3.5. At the end of the trial, further statement of the accused under Sec. 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was recorded in which the respondents pleaded not guilty and stated that they have been falsely implicated in the offence. Thus, after recording the further statement of the accused and hearing the arguments of both the sides, the learned Sessions Judge passed the above judgment and order. Being aggrieved by the same, the present Appeal has been filed by the State, as aforesaid.";