STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. GANCHI ISHMAIL @ YUSUF ABDULBHAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Feeling aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment and order of acquittal dtd. 30/7/2010 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mehsana, in Sessions Case No.5 of 2010 for the offences punishable under Ss. 306 and 498A of the Indian Penal Code, the appellant - State of Gujarat has preferred this appeal under Sec. 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, "the Code").

(2.) The prosecution case, as unfolded during the trial before the lower Court, is that, on 10/8/2009, when the complainant, who is a resident of Mumbai, came to Kalol at his in-laws' place in morning, he went to meet his daughter at Village : Kadi in evening. At that time, she has made a complaint against her brother-in-law ('Diyar') and his wife ('Derani '), who were residing at the same property but on ground floor, regarding light bill and water supply; and that she could not tolerate the same; and that the complainant has persuaded his daughter and stayed with her for two days and thereafter, returned to Kalol. Thereafter, on 14/8/2009, at about 01:30 p.m., the niece ('Bhani') viz., Sadaf has called on mobile to the complainant that her mother i.e. Asumana is not well and he, therefore, talked with his daughter - Asumana; and that she told to the complainant to come immediately there. Therefore, the complainant reached there in rented auto-rickshaw. He came to know that the deceased has consumed poison due to regular quarrel with the brother-in-law and his wife. The deceased has written a letter to be given to the police wherein she has named these two persons. Therefore, a complaint is lodged by the complainant before the Kadi Police Station for the offences punishable under Ss. 306 and 498(A) of the Indian Penal Code.

(3.) After investigation, sufficient prima facie evidence was found against the accused person/s and therefore charge- sheet was filed in the competent criminal Court. Since the offence alleged against the accused person/s was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the learned Magistrate committed the case to the Sessions Court where it came to be registered as Sessions Case No.5 of 2010. The charge was framed against the accused person/s. The accused pleaded not guilty and came to be tried.