STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. NATWARSINH RATHANSINH JADAV

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal filed under the provisions of Sec. 378(1)(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short "the Cr.P.C.") emanates from the judgement and order dtd. 12/4/2004 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, 4th Fast Track Court, Godhra, Panchmahals in Sessions Case No.268 of 2001.

(2.) The case of the prosecution is that one Kashiben Samant Sinh Yadav of Adadhara village filed a complaint on 27/2/2001 alleging that on earlier day of the complaint i.e. 26/2/2001, there was a marriage in her faliya of and while marriage procession was passing, a quarrel took place, in which her husband Ratansinh Samant and others were injured. On the day of the incident i.e. 27/2/2001, her husband went to village Dhalol. The complainant was sitting in the house of her brother-in-law, Gamersinh Somsinh with wife of elder brother-in-law Shantaben and mother-in-law of brother-in-law Gamer, Baijiben Malarsinh Rathod at this time at about 12:30 hours, Natwarsinh Ratansinh, Lalsinh Bharatsinh Jadav came along with Natwarsinh, Laxmansinh Udaysing Parmar of Ahmedabad came and thereafter, Rennuba Jellyba Darbar also came near to their house and started abusing. Natwarsinh held hand of the complainant and pulled her blouse in hassle and asked her "where Samantsinh has gone?", who has beaten his father?" and all four persons have started abusing. Thereafter, they searched for Samantsinh and they could not find him and asked the complainant where Samant has gone. Thereafter, they went to the complainant's place and and at the behes of Lalsinh Bharatsinh, Natwarsinh took a plastic bottle and thereafter, sprinkled petrol on her Bamboo house set ablaze, and thereafter, all these four persons went on motorcycle and ran away.

(3.) Learned APP Mr.Jayswal has submitted that the learned Judge has erred in doubting the version of the complainant as eye-witness, who in terms have clearly narrated the role of each of the accused and the manner in which the incident has occurred. He has submitted that the complainant has also stated truthfully about the involvement of her husband as an accused in an incident, which had occurred day earlier to the offence committed by the accused. He has submitted that the Trial court ought to have appreciated that the complainant has clearly deposed that Natwarsinh has pulled her blouse and Lalsinh Bharatsinh told to burn the house and thereafter, Natwarsinh has poured the petrol from the bottle and ignited the matchstick and burnt the house. It is submitted that this version of the complainant is supported by P.W.2.Shantaben and in the cross-examination also she stood to the test. He has further submitted that the Trial Court has erred in doubting the version of the complainant and Shantaben Jaswantsinh only on the ground that third eye-witness turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case. It is submitted that Samantsinh was not the eye-witness because he was not present at the scene of the offence. It is submitted that in these set of circumstances, the Trial court has erred in acquitting the accused by giving benefit of doubt without considering other documentary evidence such as panchnama of the scene of the offence and fact that the complaint has been recorded within short time after the incident.