STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. PITAMBARBHAI SOMABHAI HARIJAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The state has preferred the present appeal under Sec. 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking leave to appeal and challenging the judgment and order dtd. 22/12/1994 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Palanpur, Banaskantha in Sessions Case No.124 of 1993. By the impugned judgment and order, the respondents were were acquitted of the offence under Ss. 302, 34, 120-B, 201, 365 and 406 of the IPC. At the same time, the original complainant has also preferred Criminal Revision Application No.38 of 1995. Both the matters are taken up for joint hearing and disposal. The matters are of the year 1995, none is present for the respondents-accused or the original complainant. Considering the age of the matter, the same is taken up for hearing with the assistance of learned Additional Public Prosecutor.

(2.) Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has taken this Court through the charge framed against two accused persons for offences under Ss. 302, 201, 120B, 365, 406 and 34 of the IPC. The two accused being, one Pitambarbhai Somabhai Harijan and another Muman Rahimbhai Daudbhai. Reportedly, accused No.2-Muman Rahimbhai Daudbhai has now expired and therefore, appeal qua him has abated.

(3.) Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has thereafter, taken this Court through the evidence of the witnesses, particularly the evidence of the Medical Officer, who has performed the postmortem and submitted that in view of the recording made in the postmortem report as well as the deposition of the Medical Officer, the prosecution has been able to establish the homicidal death of the deceased-Abheraj. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has argued that the motive for the respondents-accused is also coming out on record, where during the course of investigation registered under Sec. 406 and 365. He came across a statement of Sadaji, who has stated that on account of an illicit relationship between his niece and the deceased, he had requested accused No.1 to do something about it as it was an issue of their family. Based on such, motive is coming out on record, the investigation has progressed and even as per the Investigating Officer, though respondent-accused No.1 did not commit such offence, but had played a role in assigning this work to accused No.2 and therefore, during the course of investigation of accused No.2, the location of the dead body was found and for which discovery panchnama was recorded.