(1.) This Appeal, preferred by the State of Gujarat under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ["Code" for short] assails the judgment and order dated 5th January 1994 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Amreli in Sessions Case No. 4 of 1993, whereby the respondents-original accused have been acquitted on benefit of doubt, as per provisions of sub- section [1] of Section 235 of the Code for the offence punishable under Section 498A , 498A read with Sections 34 & 114 , Section 302 IPC, Section 302 read with Sections 34 & 114 of the Indian Penal Code [" IPC " for short].
(2.) The prosecution case as it unfolded before the trial Court is that on 31st August 1992, at about 22:00 hours, all the accused [respondents herein]; which includes a child accused named Rashida [daughter of Musa Jamal] had given physical and mental torture to the deceased Roshan, who happens to be the wife of the accused no. 1-Salim Musabhai Ganchi and daughter-in-law of accused no. 2 Jenuben and sister- in-law of the accused no. 3-Samina @ Salma [daughter of Musa Jamal] and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 498-A IPC. It was further the case of prosecution that with a common intention to kill the complainant-Roshan, the accused no. 2 and juvenile Guddy poured kerosene on the deceased and accused nos. 1 & 3 put her ablaze and thereby caused fatal injuries to Roshan and murdered her and thereby committed an offence punishable under Sections 302 IPC and since all the accused have aided and abetted each other and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 302 read with Sections 34 & 114 IPC, all the accused persons were charge-sheeted to stand trial for the same. Relevant circumstances
(3.) All the accused persons ie., the respondents herein denied charges levelled against them and claimed to be tried. Therefore, the prosecution, in order to bring home the charge levelled against each of the accused person, submitted a muddamal list at Exh 7; list of documents at Exh. 8, which includes complaint, dying declaration and panchanama of the scene of offence and photographs at Exh. 30. The prosecution has also adduced oral evidence by examining eleven witnesses and thereafter, closed its evidence by filing a purshis Exh. 49.