STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. BHARATBHAI N DANTANIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE State has preferred this appeal against the judgment of acquittal dated 17th January 1991 rendered by the learned Additional City Sessions Judge, Court No.19, Ahmedabad in Sessions Case No.233 of 1990. The prosecution story, in brief, is as under: That on the night of 2.9.88 and in the early morning of 3.9.88, the accused and the deceased were in their house. At that time, between 1.00 a.m. and 6.30 a.m., the accused has throttled his wife by pressing her neck and thereby committed murder and thereafter the accused has absconded from his house. Son of the accused, therefore, filed FIR before Shahpur Police Station. The Investigating Officer carried out the investigation and filed chargesheet before the learned Magistrate Court. The learned Magistrate thereafter committed the case to the learned Sessions Court which was numbered as Sessions Case No.233 of 1990. During the course of trial before the learned Sessions Court, the prosecution examined several witnesses with a view to prove the case against the accused. The prosecution had examined complainant Gopal Bharatbhai, PW -1, Ex.10. However, the said witness has not supported the case of the prosecution and therefore, he was declared hostile. The prosecution had also examined one Sunil Shankarlal, brother -in -law of the accused at Ex.11. The said witness has also not supported the case of the prosecution and therefore, he was also declared hostile. The prosecution has relied upon the deposition given by PW -3, Balwantbhai Chaturbhai, Ex.12.

(2.) THE said witness is the brother of deceased Hansaben. The said witness has stated during the course of his deposition that deceased Hansaben used to come at the residence of the said witness and at that time she was complaining about the behaviour of the accused.

(3.) ON the basis of the oral as well as documentary evidence produced before it, the learned Trial Court acquitted the accused by giving benefit of doubt and by observing that the prosecution has failed to prove the case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The State has, therefore, preferred this appeal before this Court.