STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. SOLANKI VISARAMBHAI KALABHAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present Criminal Appeal is filed by the State under Section 378(1)(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code against the judgment and order dated 28.1.2005 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Curt No.2, Patan in Sessions Case No.88 of 2003, whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge was pleased to acquit the respondents - accused from the offences for which they have been tried.

(2.) The case of the prosecution is that first informant - Revabhai Icchabhai Chauhan, father of the deceased Madhuben, had lodged the complaint alleging that Madhuben (daughter) got married to one Laxmikant Solanki and was staying in the joint family at her in-laws place. She was having two children; one daughter named Unnati, aged about 8 years and one son aged about 2 and 1/2 years. It was alleged in the complaint that the victim was given mental and physical torture on account of issue related to dowry and whenever deceased Madhuben was coming to the house of the complainant, she was complaining about her torture being meted out to her, on account of insufficient dowry.

(3.) Mr.L.R.Poojari, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing for the State has vehemently contended that the judgment and order passed by the trial court is not only in conflict with the evidence on record, but reflects clear non- application of mind. Learned APP has further contended that serious error is committed by the trial court in evaluating the evidence on record and the entire conclusion is based upon surmises and conjectures. Mr.Poojari has further contended that despite the fact that there are number of letters written by the father indicating the torture being meted out to his daughter . Still, however, said letters were not construed and considered in its true spirit. Learned APP has further contended that PW-24 - Revabhai Icchabhai Chauhan, examined at Exh.225, who happened to be the father of the victim Madhuben, had categorically asserted in his evidence about the torture meted out to his daughter and the letters which were produced on record clearly indicated the ill- treatment and, therefore, learned APP has contended that when such kind of evidence is available on record, the trial court has not appreciated the same in its proper perspective and, therefore, the order of acquittal is not justified. In addition to this, learned APP has drawn our attention to several other testimonies of witnesses, who have been examined by the prosecution in the course of establishing the case beyond reasonable doubt against the respondents accused.