STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. IQBAL ISMAIL VORA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The State of Gujarat, being aggrieved by the order of acquittal recorded by the learned AddI. Sessions Judge, Court No. IX, Ahmedabad in Sessions, Case No. 97 of 1980 wherein the respondents - accused were prosecuted for offences punishable under section 302 read with sec. 120-B of the IPC as also under section 201 of the IPC, has preferred this appeal. It was alleged that on 12.6.1979, deceased Gulam Mohmad Atamahmad was taken away under some pretext by the respondent No. 2 to the house of respondent No. 1 where he was made to take liquor and thereafter the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 had inflicted blows with a founder and an iron pipe and had brought about the death of the deceased and thereafter all the three had thrown away the dead body in an unused well in the courtyard of respondents No. 2 and 3. When the deceased was not heard of for a long time, initially information was lodged and it was treated as a case of a missing person. Almost 13 months thereafter, it is alleged that Gulam Gosh, the brother of the deceased who was inquiring about the whereabouts of the deceased had contacted respondent No. 3 before whom respondent No. 3 is alleged to have made an extra-judicial confession. The respondent No. 3 was thereafter taken to one Mohmad Shaft alias Chuni Master who is a Municipal Corporator. This extra judicial confession is alleged to have taken place on 24.7.1980. Inspite of this, nothing was done on the same day. But thereafter, on 25.7.1980, a complaint was lodged, investigation started and the accused was arraigned before the learned AddI. City Sessions Judge on the above charges.

(2.) The motive for the alleged crime is said to be that the respondent No. iTs wife Noorjahan was of little lax moral and the deceased was in toe with her. The respondent No. 1 had, therefore, divorced her, but he being infatuated by her beauty was not prepared to relinquish her though he had divorced her at the behest of his father. He wanted to remarry her, but under the Muslim Law, that could not have been done unless Noorjahan was married to someone else. The respondent No. 3 was found handy for the said purpose. They married on the same day. The respondent No. 3 was compelled to divorce her. He accordingly divorced her. Thereafter, the respondent No. 1 married her and she was sent to the house of her parents. It was; however, suspected that still the deceased was keeping himself in touch with Noorjahan and that was the motive for crime.

(3.) The learned AddI. City Sessions Judge, on appreciation of evidence, came to the conclusion that the dead was not proved to be homicidal in the instant case and recorded the order of acquittal and the State of Gujarat being aggrieved by the said order, has preferred this appeal challenging the said order.