STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. JADAV AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Facts of this case illustrate a disquieting feature as to how the trial Court has committed a grave miscarriage of justice in recording the acquittal of the respondents - accused by playing in the hands of the witnesses who were admittedly relatives of even victim.

(2.) As observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Zahira Habibulla Sheikh and Anr. vs. State of Gujarat and Ors, 2004 4 SCC 158 and in the case of Zahira Habibulla Sheikh (5) and Anr. vs. State of Gujarat and Ors, 2006 3 SCC 374 "A criminal trial is a judicial examination of the issues in the case and its purpose is to arrive at a judgment on an issue as to a fact or relevant facts which may lead to the discovery of the fact issue and obtain proof of such facts at which the prosecution and the accused have arrived by their pleadings; the controlling question being the guilt or innocence of the accused. Since the object is to met out justice and to convict the guilty and protect the innocent, the trial should be a search for the truth and not a bout over technicalities, and must be conducted under such rules as will protect the innocent, and punish the guilty. If a criminal court is to be an effective instrument in dispensing justice, the Presiding Judge must cease to be a spectator and a mere recording machine, by becoming a participant in the trial evincing intelligence, active interest and eliciting all relevant materials necessary for reaching the correct conclusions, to find out the truth, and administer justice with fairness and impartiality both to the parties and to the community it serves. Courts administering criminal justice cannot turn a blind eye to vexatious or oppressive conduct that has occurred in relation to the proceedings, even if a fair trial is still possible, except at the risk of undermining the fair name and standing of the judges as impartial and independent adjudicators". The Hon'ble Supreme Court has further observed 'the Courts have always been considered to have an overriding duty to maintain public confidence in the administration of justice often referred to as the duty to vindicate and uphold the 'majesty of law'. It is further observed that "due administration of justice has always been viewed as a continuous process, not confined to determination of the particular case, protecting its ability to function as to court of law in the future as in the case before it." It is further observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that "Courts have to ensure that the accused persons are punished. A criminal trial should not be reduced to be mock trials or shadowboxing or fixed trials."

(3.) Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order of acquittal passed by the learned Additional City Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court No.2), Ahmedabad (hereinafter referred to as "learned trial Court") in Sessions Case No.16/2007 by which the learned trial Court has acquitted the respondents herein - original accused for the offences punishable under sections 498A read with Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as "IPC") and sections 306, 304(B) read with Section 114 of the IPC and sections 3 and 7 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, the State has preferred the present Criminal Appeal.