LAWS(GJH)-2017-11-270

STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. THAKORE KANUJI @ KANAKSINH GAMBHIRSINH

Decided On November 24, 2017
STATE OF GUJARAT Appellant
V/S
Thakore Kanuji @ Kanaksinh Gambhirsinh Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of the instant appeal, the appellant - State of Gujarat has assailed the judgment and order dated 13.07.1994, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mehsana, in Sessions Case No.283 of 1993, whereby the respondent-original accused has been acquitted of the charge under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 .

(2.) The case of the prosecution, in brief, is as follows:

(3.) The Police came to the Hospital and conducted the Inquest Panchnama. Thereafter, the Panchnama of the Scene of Offence was drawn, statements of witnesses were taken and samples of mud were taken from the spot. The bloodstained clothes of the deceased were taken into custody. The Panchnama of the physical verification of the respondent was drawn and the bloodstained pant of the respondent was taken into custody. The weapon of offence was recovered and sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) along with the pant of the respondent. The respondent was arrested. As sufficient evidence was found against him, a charge-sheet was filed in the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Chanasma. As the case was Sessions triable, the learned Magistrate committed it to the Sessions Court. The Sessions Court framed the charge at Exh.1, which was read over and explained to the accused. He denied his guilt and claimed to be tried. Accordingly, the trial commenced. The prosecution examined nine witnesses and led documentary evidence. In his statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ('the Code' for short), the respondent stated that a day prior to the incident, the deceased had received a letter. The respondent had asked her to give him the letter to read but she refused to do so. There was a quarrel over this. His mother and father-in-law (parents of the deceased) told him that if he wanted to fight, he should leave the house and go. Hence, he had gone to his own house. The respondent, however, did not examine any defence witnesses.