STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. KHUMANSINH HEMAJI CHAUHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned APP Mr. B.Y. Mankad for the appellant,learned counsel Mr. Nitin Amin for Respondent Nos. 1 & 2 and learned counsel Mr. K.R.Raval for Respondent no.3. Learned counsel Mr. Raval appearing for Respondent No.3 has endorsed the submissions made by learned counsel Mr. Amin appearing for Respondent Nos.1 & 2. Respondents are original accused and for the sake of convenience, they are referred to as the original accused in this judgment.

(2.) This appeal is preferred by the State against the judgment and order dated 30.5.1992 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Mehsana in Criminal Appeal No.75/90 whereby the learned Sessions Judge allowed the appeal and quashed and set aside the judgment and order dated 8.8.1990 passed by learned Asstt. Sessions Judge, Mehsana in Sessions Case No. 23/88. Accused nos. 1 & 2 were convicted for the offences punishable under sec. 306 R/w sec.34 of IPC and were sentenced to suffer R/I for 5 Years and to pay a fine of Rs.500.00 each ( Rs. five hundred only ), I/d to undergo S/I for 6 Months and accused no.3 was convicted for the offence punishable under sec.306, 109 R/w sec.34 of IPC and was sentenced to undergo R/I for 5 Years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/ ( Rs. Five hundred only ).

(3.) Accused were charged for the offences punishable under sections 306, 109 R/w sec.34 of IPC. According to the prosecution, accused have abetted in the suicide committed by deceased Manoj, a boy aged about 16 years. After appreciating the oral as well as documentary evidence led by the prosecution during the course of trial of Sessions Case No. 23/88, accused came to be convicted and sentenced by the learned Asstt. Sessions Judge, vide judgment dated 8.8.1990 as stated above. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said judgment, the accused preferred Criminal Appeal No. 75/90 before the learned Sessions Judge, Mehsana. Learned Sessions Judge, Mehsana, vide judgment and order dated 30.5.1992, allowed the appeal, quashed and set aside the judgment and order of conviction and sentence and acquitted the accused. Being aggrieved by the order of acquittal recorded by the learned Sessions Judge, the State has preferred this appeal.