STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. KANTILAL BHIMJIBHAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY way of the present appeal under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the appellant State has challenged the impugned judgement and order of acquittal dated 18.4.1992 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Junagadh, in Sessions Case No. 98 of 1991 whereby the respondent original accused was acquitted of the charges under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.

(2.) THE brief facts of the prosecution case are that the incident occurred on 14.12.1990 at 2.00 p.m. at the house of respondent accused in the vicinity of Satvadla, Mendarda. The marriage of deceased Diwaliben with the accused was solemnized before 2 to 3 years of the incident. After marriage, quarrel started between the accused and the deceased as the deceased was not able to do labour work. Therefore, the accused was harassing her and he also used to beat her. The deceased was frequently complaining about the harassment to her maternal uncle Jethabhai and he used to go to the house of the accused. The accused was not allowing Jethabhai to visit his house and he warned his wife deceased Diwali that if she goes to the house of Jethabhai, he will kill her. Thereafter, Diwaliben became pregnant and she was brought to her parental house for the purpose of delivery. After she had given birth to a baby boy, the accused brought her back to his residence at Mendarda. Thereafter, quarrel was taking place between the accused and his wife deceased Diwaliben. On the day of incident, the accused inflicted three blows with axe on Diwaliben, two of them fell on the vital part of her body i.e. on her head and third blow fell on her right arm. Because of the blows inflicted by the accused, Diwaliben fell down on the ground and blood was profusely oozing out. Thereafter, the accused presented himself before the police station and confessed his crime. On the basis of this information, investigation was carried out. After investigation, chargesheet was filed in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class. As the case was triable by the Court of Sessions, it was committed to the Sessions Court.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the appellant State Ms. C.M. Shah has submitted that in order to prove the case against the accused, the prosecution has examined the following witnesses: