LAWS(GJH)-2015-10-22

STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. KANUBHAI PASHABHAI PATEL

Decided On October 07, 2015
STATE OF GUJARAT Appellant
V/S
Kanubhai Pashabhai Patel Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY way of this appeal, the appellant - State has challenged the judgment and order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sabarkantha at Himmatnagar (for short, 'the trial Court'), Dated: 07.07.1993, rendered in Special Case No. 49 of 1992, whereby, the learned trial Court acquitted the original accused -the opponent, herein, of the charge for the offence punishable under Sections 307 and 498(A) of the Indian Penal Code.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case of the prosecution, as set out before the trial Court, are that on 28.02.1992, a complaint came to be lodged by one Anjnaben Dhulabhai Maganbhai, wherein, she stated that she is married with one Kanubhai Patel, who is a resident of the village Hadiyol. Before about one week of the incident, she had come to her matrimonial home. The complainant, further, stated in her complaint that on 28.02.1992, her husband, took her to Himmatnagar for a visit. On reaching Himmatnagar, they went to taxi stand and from there they went to Sabar Dairy and from there, they went towards canal on foot. At that point of time, the complainant asked her husband, as to why do you keep relations with Jagruti. On her saying so, her husband, i.e. the accused, got enraged and took out a knife from his person and started inflicting blows on her indiscriminately and despite the fact that the complainant tried to resist him, the accused caused injuries on her abdomen, thigh, both hands, back etc. When the complainant started shouting, the accused run away and several persons came from the direction of Sabar Dairy and out of them, somebody made a telephone call to her house. On receiving the telephone call, her cousins namely Dinesh and Jagdishbhai came there and took her to the hospital, where, the complainant gave the detailed complaint about the incident before the police.

(3.) APART from that the prosecution also produced the following documentary evidences in support of its case;