STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. VALJIBHAI NATHABHAI VAGDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) At the outset it is required to be mentioned that as per the endorsement on the board it is borne out that respondents No. 1 and 4 have expired and today learned APP has stated that as per the instructions received by her from PSI, Panchkoshi 'B' Division Police Station, respondent No. 2 has also expired. In that view of the matter, appeal qua respondents No. 1, 2 and 4 shall stand abated. This appeal is therefore heard qua respondent Nos. 3 and 5 - hereinafter referred to as 'the respondents'.

(2.) The brief facts of the prosecution case are that the deceased had given a complaint on 15.12.2000 alleging inter alia that the original accused No. 1 - husband of deceased and original accused No. 2 to 4 - in laws on the deceased used to taunt her by saying that she was a witch and that she had made her elder brother-in-law mad and also killed her father-in-law. It is her say in the complaint that the accused used to give her mental and physical torture and had thrown her out of the house. She has further stated that on the day of incident, the original accused No. 1 quarreled with her and had thrown away the food. Thereafter between 12.30 and 01.00 pm while her children had gone out for playing, the deceased and her husband had a fight and thereafter the deceased ran out of the house and the deceased ran behind her. It is the say of the complainant that when she reached a narrow street of falia, accused No. 1 poured kerosene on her and set her ablaze. People gathered there and extinguished the fire and she was taken to hospital. A complaint was therefore lodged by the complainant. Pursuant to the complaint, investigation was carried out. After investigation, charge-sheet was filed and as the case was triable by the Court of Sessions, it was committed to the Court of Sessions.

(3.) Ms. Shah, learned APP appearing for the appellant-State has submitted that the trial court committed an error in releasing the respondents-original accused No. 3 and 5. It was contended by Ms. Shah, that the judgement and order of the Sessions Court is against the provisions of law; the Sessions Court has not properly considered the evidence led by the prosecution and looking to the provisions of law itself it is established that the prosecution has proved the whole ingredients of the evidence against the present respondent. Learned APP has also taken this court through the oral as well as the entire documentary evidence.