STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. MULJI @ MAHESH VAJUBHAI KATHROTIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal under section 378(1)and (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "the Code") is directed against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 2nd February, 2005 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.3, Amreli in Sessions Case No.53/2000.

(2.) The prosecution case is that the first informant - Tapubhai Punabhai Taank lodged a first information report stating that he was residing at Rajula and had one son and two daughters. The eldest daughter was named Anjuben who was married to one Jayantibhai Tapubhai Kumbhar. Bhavna was younger than her and was 17 years of age and his son Mahesh was younger than Bhavna and was 13 years of age. Both Bhavna and Mahesh were unmarried and were residing with the first informant. On 3rd June, 1999, the first informant had gone for some social work to Talgajarda and had returned at 4:30 in the evening at which point of time, his son Mahesh had told him that in the morning at around 10 o'clock when his mother Savitaben had gone to the brick kiln, at that time, Mahesh and his sister Bhavna were at home and Bhavna had asked for money to buy vegetables and after taking money, Bhavna had hastily gone out of the house and that finding her conduct suspicious, Mahesh had followed her. Thereafter, Mahesh had seen the accused following Bhavna and since there was no one at home, he had returned home. Thereafter, in the afternoon, when his mother returned from the kiln, Mahesh informed her and Mahesh and his mother started searching for Bhavna but they could not find her. They had also inquired at the neighbouring villages but could not trace out his daughter as well as the accused. It was further stated that the accused was staying with his brother -in -law at the house next to the first informant's house and was engaged in the business of polishing diamonds. According to the first informant, since the life of his daughter was in question and with a view to see that her reputation in the society is not spoilt, he had tried to search her out himself and had lodged the complaint belatedly. Accordingly, the first information report came to be registered against the accused for the offence punishable under sections 363 and 366 of the Indian Penal Code. Upon conclusion of the investigation, a charge - sheet came to be submitted in the court of the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Rajula. Since the case was triable by the Sessions Court, it came to be committed to the Court of Sessions at Amreli (hereinafter referred to as "the trial court") where it came to be numbered as Sessions Case No.53/2000.

(3.) Before the trial court, on behalf of the prosecution, nine witnesses came to be examined and certain documentary evidence in the nature of the first information report, the scene of offence panchnama, arrest panchnama, various medical certificates, etc. came to be produced on record. The trial court, after appreciating the evidence on record, came to the conclusion that the prosecution had failed to establish the charge against the accused and acquitted him.