STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. HARILAL @ HARIYA CHHOTUBHAI GAMIT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Feeling aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment and order of acquittal dated 28.10.2002, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Navsari, in Sessions Case No.11 of 2002, for the offences punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, the appellant - State of Gujarat has preferred this appeal under Section 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 the complainant-Manubhai Babubhai Gamit is residing with his family in Vansda taluka; that his younger brother-Bachu got married with Gitaben before fifteen years and he has two sons out of the said wedlock -Dharmesh and Tejas, out of whom, Tejas was aged 6 and studying in first standard; that on 8.11.2001 at 17.30 hours, Tejas went missing from the verandah (faliya) and when he was not found inspite of great efforts, the younger brother of the complainant informed about the same in the police chowky of Unai outpost on 10.11.2001; that on 11.11.2001, the complainant's brother Bachu and Arvind and other persons went to Navsari in search of Tejas and the complainant was searching for him in the village; the complainant's brother Sanmukh informed him that he last saw Tejas on 8.11.2001 at 5.30 hours; that when the complainant was at home, Gulab Magan of the said faliya came and informed one lady came to him and informed that one child's dead body is found in the isolated well of Kishanbhai; therefore, the complainant, Gulabbhai, Chandan Manji, Bhikha Devji, the complainant's brother Sanmukh etc. went to the field of Kishanbhai and saw in the well and found that the dead body of Tejas was floating therein; therefore, the complainant filed the complaint in Unai outpost.

(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.11 of 2002. The charge was framed against the accused person/s. The accused pleaded not guilty and came to be tried.