STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. VINODKUMAR ARJANBHAI CHAUHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE challenge in this appeal filed by the appellantState of Gujarat is to the judgment and order dated 12.08.1993, rendered by the learned Additional City Sessions Judge, Sessions Court No.18, Ahmedabad ("the Trial Court", for short) in Sessions Case No.111/1990, whereby the respondentsoriginal accused have been acquitted of the charges under Sections498A and 306 read with Section114 of the Indian Penal Code.

(2.) RESPONDENT No.1, Vinodkumar Arjanbhai Chauhan, is the husband of deceased Bhagwati. Respondent No.2, Arjanbhai Dosabhai Chauhan, was the fatherinlaw of the deceased, who died during the pendency of the trial. The case, qua him has, therefore, abated. Respondent No.3, Taraben Arjanbhai Chauhan, is the motherinlaw of the deceased. Respondents Nos.1 to 3 have been served, but have not chosen to put in an appearance before this Court.

(3.) INVESTIGATING machinery was set into motion. The statements of the witnesses were recorded, and an inquest was held on the dead body of the deceased, which was then sent for autopsy. After completion of the investigation, as there was sufficient material on record against the accused, a chargesheet was submitted before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Ahmedabad. As the offence under Section306 is exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the learned Magistrate committed the case to the learned Additional Sessions Judge, where it was registered as Sessions Case No.111/1990. The Trial Court to which the case was made over for trial, framed the charges against the accused, which were read over and explained to them. The accused denied their guilt and claimed to be tried. Accordingly, the case was put to trial. In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution examined as many as eleven witnesses and produced documentary evidence. No defence witnesses were examined. After the recording of the evidence of the prosecution witnesses was over, the Trial Court explained to the accused the statements appearing against them in evidence and recorded their statements under Section313 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. Their defence was that of total denial.