STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. PIYUSHBHAI BABUBHAI DESAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal is preferred by the appellant State, challenging the judgment and order of acquittal, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mehsana, in Sessions Case No. 250 of 2004, thereby acquitting the accused persons for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 498(A),203,120(B), r/w. Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act.

(2.) The case of the prosecution is that the accused No.2, i.e. the husband of the deceased, who married the deceased seven years back, in collusion with accused Nos.1,3 and 4, they being his elder brother, father and mother respectively, altogether mentally and physically tortured the deceased by saying that he (accused No.2) did not like her as she was 'Black' and that he wanted to marry another girl and wanted to take divorce from her. By doing so, the accused persons have committed offence punishable under Section 498(A) of the Indian Penal Code. Moreover, on 30.08.2004, at 10:00 o'clock in the night at Kheralu, accused No.2 along with the deceased had gone to the house of Bhikhabhai, who happens to be "fuvaa" of the deceased Hansaben. As planned earlier, accused No.1 came there along with the tractor to pick them up, and while returning, the accused persons Nos. 1 and 2 in conspiracy with each other, as decided/planned earlier the accused No.2, in his full knowledge and wisdom, hit the deceased Hansaben with iron tommy on head and gave fist blows, knowing very well that such an injury was sufficient in natural course to cause death of a person. Therefore, the accused persons were charged for offences punishable under sections 302,120(B) read with Section 34 of the I.P.C. Moreover, the accused persons on the above mentioned date, time and place, having murdered the deceased with weapon and in spite of knowing that the victim has succumbed to injuries and died, they approached Kheralu Taluka Police Station and filed a wrong complaint that while they were returning, the deceased Hansaben had fallen from the tractor due to bump, and that back tyre of tractor passed through the deceased, which has resulted into her injuries. Due to filing of the wrong complaint, the accused persons were also charged for the offences punishable under Section 203 read with Section 34 of the I.P.C. On the above mentioned date, time and place, the notification of Prohibition of Arms, issued by the Additional District Magistrate was in force. The accused persons herein breached the said notification. Therefore, they were also charged for the offence punishable under Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act.

(3.) Upon filing of the complaint, investigation was carried out and the accused persons were arrested and charge sheet was submitted in the Court of learned Magistrate. However, as the case was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the same was committed to Sessions Court. Thereafter, charge was framed against the accused persons. The accused persons pleaded 'not guilty' and claimed to be tried.