STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. LIMBAJI C. THAKOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is preferred under section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Code of 1973) against judgment and order dated 23.03.1990 in Sessions Case No.107 of 1989 by the learned Additional City Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad acquitting the respondent/ original accused, who was charged for offence punishable under sections 302 and 498A of the IPC.

(2.) As per the case of the prosecution one Harish Vanaji Thakore, aged 31 years filed complaint on 13.03.1989 that his sister, aged 22 years, who earlier married with Amdupura Dilipkumar before 4 years had taken divorce as it was not compatible for her to continue matrimonial life with him. Before two years, Hansaben, sister of the complainant entered into customary marriage with Limbaji Chamnaji Thakore, aged 25 years and residing in the opposite chawl and she used to stay with him. That parents of Limbaji stayed at Lokhand Bazar, Sarangpur. That Hansaben had not borne any child out of earlier marriage. That husband of her sister earns livelihood in Sarangpur by moving handcart. However, husband of her sister is having bad habit of drinking liquor and had never lent any money to her to run daily chores. In addition to above he used to harass her and often caused physical injuries and in such circumstances his sister used to apprise the complainant about such cruelty exerted by her husband and upon persuasion by him and mother, Hansaben used to go back to her husband.

(3.) Mr.A.D. Shah, learned counsel for defence- respondentoriginal accused has taken us to findings and reasonings of the learned Trial Judge in acquitting the accused both under sections 302 and 306 of IPC and submitted that acquittal is ordered not on surmises or conjectures but it is based on cogent and convincing reasons advanced by the learned Trial Judge, namely, for not relying the complainant, his mother and neighbours and therefore, this Court would be loath in interfering with the judgment and order of acquittal. According to the learned counsel for defence even no case was made out for cruelty, namely, mental and physical in absence of any evidence on record and even witnesses, who deposed before the trial court only narrated manner and instances of quarrel for which no complaint was made in the past nor any physical injury was caused. It is submitted that testimonies of witnesses were full of contradictions, improvements and embellishment and further in view of inconsistencies through out, such witnesses do not inspire any confidence and therefore, they are not reliable and rightly the learned Trial Judge disbelieved them which resulted into acquittal. It is therefore, submitted that considering the parameters for exercise of appellate powers by this Court against the judgment and order of acquittal this appeal deserves to be rejected.