LAWS(GJH)-2026-2-72

STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. SHAIKH ISMAILBHAI AJITBHAI

Decided On February 10, 2026
STATE OF GUJARAT Appellant
V/S
Shaikh Ismailbhai Ajitbhai Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Feeling aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment and order of acquittal dtd. 25/9/2012 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, City Sessions Court, Ahmedabad, in Sessions Case No.92 of 2012 for the offences punishable under Ss. 498(A), 306 and 506(1) of the Indian Penal Code, the appellant-State of Gujarat has preferred this appeal under Sec. 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, "the Code").

(2.) The prosecution case as unfolded during the trial before the trial Court is that the complainant viz. Javedaben Ismailbhai Shaikh (the victim) got married with the respondent - accused before twenty six years of the alleged incident and out of the said wedlock, they had two daughters and two sons and both the daughters were married and residing in their matrimonial house; that her husband used to cause harassment to her since last twenty years, but she was tolerating the same; and that before two-three days of the alleged incident, there was continuous harassment at the hands of the respondent-accused; that on the day of the incident i.e. 1/9/2011, she was alone at home and at that time, the respondent-accused came and started beating her and told her that he would kill her, but, as she could not bear it, she sprinkled kerosene over her body and set herself ablaze; thereafter, she was taken to the Civil Hospital in 108 ambulance, where she gave complaint and during the course of treatment, she succumbed to the burn injuries.

(3.) After investigation, sufficient prima facie evidence was found against the accused person/s and therefore chargesheet 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.92 of 2012. The charge was framed against the accused person/s. The accused pleaded not guilty and came to be tried.