JUDGEMENT
HARSHA DEVANI,J. -
(1.) By this appeal under section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the appellant-State of Gujarat has challenged the
judgment and order of acquittal dated 30.12.1994 passed by
the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Amreli in Sessions Case
No.122 of 1992, whereby the respondents herein have been
acquitted.
(2.) Briefly stated, the prosecution case is that the respondents accused No.1 and 2 are husband and wife and the
deceased was the brother of accused No.1. There were
differences between the accused No.1 and the deceased as the
accused No.1 wanted to reside separately. Accused No.2 was
pressurising accused No.1 to separate from the joint family,
due to which, there were family disputes between the two
brothers. At the time of the incident, the accused and the
deceased were residing together. On the day of the incident,
the deceased was lying on his cot in the morning. At that time,
both the accused got together with the intention of causing
death of the deceased. Accused No.1 inflicted two blows with a
crowbar used for the purpose of repairing punctures on the
head of the deceased, as a result whereof, the deceased died
on the spot. At that time, accused No.2 was instigating the
accused No.1 and was hurling abuses. In terms of the
prosecution case, both the accused had got together and with
the intention of causing the death of the deceased, inflicted
blows with a crowbar on the head of the deceased and caused
grievous injuries, due to which, the deceased died on the spot.
Thereafter, both the accused went away. Pursuant thereto, a
first information report came to be lodged by PW-3 Dahyabhai
Naranbhai and investigation came to be carried out and upon
finding sufficient material against the accused, a charge sheet
came to be submitted in the court of the learned Magistrate.
Since the case was triable by a Court of Sessions, it came to be
committed to the Sessions Court, where it came to be
numbered as Sessions Case No.122 of 1992. The charge came
to be framed at Exhibit-1 for the offences punishable under
section 302 read with section 114 and section 504 of the
Indian Penal Code and section 135 of the Bombay Police Act,
and was read over to the accused. The accused pleaded not
guilty and asked to be tried.
(3.) Before the trial court, the prosecution examined, in all, nine witnesses and adduced certain documentary evidence on
record. The trial court, after appreciating the evidence on
record, found that the prosecution had failed to prove the
charge against the accused and acquitted them.;
Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.