STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. MIYAMA ABHRAM MAMAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant State of Gujarat has preferred this appeal challenging the order of acquittal dated 2nd June, 1984, recorded by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Morbi acquitting the respondent accused from the offences under Sections 302, 457 and 324 of the IPC as well as from the offence under Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act while disposing of Sessions Case No. 5 of 1984 and the appeal was admitted by issuing bailable warrant against the respondent accused as per order dated 12th December, 1984.

(2.) We have heard Mr. K.C. Shah, learned Addl. PP for the appellant State of Gujarat and Mr. H.J. Shah, learned advocate for the respondent accused.

(3.) During hearing Mr. K.C. Shah, learned Addl. P.P. has taken us through the paper book consisting of oral as well as documentary evidence and the judgement under challenge and according to him that in light of the evidence led by the prosecution, the learned trial Judge was not right in acquitting the respondent accused when the prosecution has examined the witnesses, who are not merely the witnesses to the incident but some of the witnesses had even received injuries in the incident and the complainant and other witnesses, who had sustained injuries in the incident, are none else but in close relation with deceased Rahima as well as the respondent accused - husband of Rahima and the reasoning of the learned trial Judge has resulted into miscarriage of justice.