STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. BHIMAJI @ PREMAJI MANJI MAJIRANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and order of acquittal dtd. 4/3/1994 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Banaskantha @ Palanpur in Sessions Case No.37 of 1993, whereby the respondents accused came to be acquitted for the offences under sec. 302, 34, 114 of Indian Penal Code, the appellant - State has preferred present appeal under sec. 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ("the Code" for short).

(2.) Brief facts of the complaint as per complainant is such that the name of the mother of the decesaed Mafaji is Khemiben. Said Khemiben has two sisters viz. Shantaben and Paruben and their mother's name is Kesriben, who was the first wife of Aaidanji Navaji and name of second and third wife of Aaidanji Navaji was Lavangaben and Lilaben respectively. Said Kesriben had expired, whereas Lavangaben and Lilaben are alive. Since Aaidanji has no heir, he adopted deceased Mafaji, son of his daughter Khemiben, when Mafaji was five years old. Said Aaidanji possessed land admeasuring 40 vigha. That accused No.1 Bhomaji, husband of Paruben oftenly said that he has 1/6th share in the aforementioned land and he has demanded his share from the deceased Mafaji and for that, a scuffle also took place between respondent accused No.1 and deceased Mafaji. It is the case of the prosecution that after adoption of deceased Mafaji, the possession of the aforementioned land was handed over to deceased Mafaji. That Shantaben and others have relinquished their rights from the aforementioned land. Thereafter, compromise is arrived at and Rs.25,000.00 cash has been given to accused No.1 being the share of Paruben. However, the accused No.1 did not like said compromise and therefore, he used to quarrel with deceased Mafaji. That Paruben has also filed revenue apppeal before the Deputy Collector, Palanpur alleging that her name is wrongly deleted from the land in dispute. Thereafter, the village people intervened and told the accused No.1 for compromise. That on on the day of incident between 9:00 p.m. and 10:00 p.m.,, after taking meal, deceased Mafaji went for worship at the Otla of Ramdevpir. That at 12:00 a.m. in midnight, Shardaben - wife of Mafaji and Lavangaben suddenly wake up after hearing shouts of Mafaji, which was coming from the Otla of Ramdevpir. Thereupon, they went to the place of incident and saw the respondents accused standing at the place of offence having dharia and dagger in their hands. Thereafter, both the accused ran away from the scene of offence. Thereafter, Lavangaben went to the complainant Savabhai, whose field is adjacent to the place of offence and informed him about the incident. Thereupon, complainant Savabhai rushed to the place of incident where he found Mafaji dead, neck of Mafaji was cut and blood was oozing out from the body. Thus, FIR being C.R.No.I339 of 1992 came to be registered against the respondents accused for the offence under sec. 302, 114, 34 of IPC.

(3.) In pursuance of the complaint being C.R.No.I- 339 of 1992 lodged by the complainant with the Deesa Police Station for the offence under Sec. 302, 114, 34 of Indian Penal Code, the investigating agency recorded statements of the witnesses, drawn panchnama of scene of offence, discovery and recovery of weapons for the purpose of proving the offence. After having found sufficient material against the respondents accused, charge-sheet came to be filed in the Court of concerned learned JMFC. As said Court lacks jurisdiction to try the offence, it committed the case to the Sessions Court, Banaskantha @ Palanpur as provided under sec. 209 of the Code.