CHETANKUMAR BHOGILAL Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant-orig.convict (hereinafter referred to as 'the appellant') has preferred present appeal under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, challenging the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 18th July 1997 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.16, Ahmedabad City, in Sessions Case No.247 of 1994, whereby the learned trial Judge has held the appellant guilty for the charge of offence punishable under Section 498(A) of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. However, the learned trial Judge has been pleased to acquit the appellant from the charge of offences punishable under Section 304(B), 306 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned trial Judge has also acquitted the other accused persons i.e. orig.accused nos.2,3 and 4, from all the charges levelled against them in respect of the crime in question.

(2.) The legality and validity of the judgment and order of conviction and sentence under challenge has been assailed on various grounds as mentioned in the memo of the appeal. Today the appellant is absent when called out. Earlier this appeal was listed for final hearing before this Court (Coram : K.M. Mehta, J), but when the learned Presiding Judge found that Shri C.G. Mehta, Advocate for the appellant has expired, it was ordered that the Registry shall intimate the appellant-convict so that he can arrange for his appearance in this appeal. The appellant has been intimated accordingly and a notice is also served. A notice of intimation was received by one Pankaj Varma on behalf of the appellant on 04th July 2007. Thereafter, no arrangement has been made and, therefore, there is nobody here before this Court to place the case for the appellant. In view of settled legal position it is not possible for this Court to dismiss the present appeal for want of prosecution and, therefore, the present speaking order is being passed with the assistance of Shri P.D. Bhate, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing on behalf of the respondent-State.

(3.) Shri P.D. Bhate, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, has taken this Court through various grounds of challenge. In sum and substance, the say of the appellant in the memo of the appeal is that the evidence on record has not been appreciated correctly and when the story of the prosecution has not been believed in substantia, the appellant could not have been held guilty for the charge of offence punishable under Section 498(A) of the Indian Penal Code.