STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. SHARMA CHIMALAL CHHANALAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BEING aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and order rendered by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Mansa ('ld.Magistrate', for short) on 25.02.1999 in Criminal Case No.383 of 1990, the State of Gujarat preferred this appeal under Section 378 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 ('Code', for short). By virtue of the impugned judgment and order, the ld.Magistrate was pleased to acquit the present respondents -accused for the offences punishable under Section 451, 352 and 506(2), r/w. Section 114 of Indian Penal Code ('IPC', for short).

(2.) THE case of the prosecution in nutshell is, the complainant Pravinbhai Chandulal was residing along with his family members in the area called Pandyano Madh, Vallabh Chowk, Mansa. That the 3 respondents -accused were also residing in the same vicinity. It is the case of the prosecution that the respondent -accused No.1 Chimanlal Chanalal had illicit relation with the wife of the complainant named Pravinaben. Many a times, complainant asked the respondent -accused No.1 not to keep illicit relation with his wife. That before about 2 days from the date of filing the FIR before police (considering the FIR, Exhibit -21, the same was filed in Mansa Police Station by the complainant on 11.9.1989), the respondents -accused armed with Dariya and Sticks, trespassed into the house of the complainant and they threatened to kill the complainant and his family members. That they assaulted with dangerous weapons in their hand. After the complaint was registered, the police started investigation, and after the completion of investigation, the police filed chargesheet against the present respondents No.1 and 2 i.e. original accused No.1 Chimanalal Chanalal and original accused No.2 Subhash Chanalal. It appears that during the course of trial, the complainant applied under Section 319 of the Code to implead the present respondent No.3 as co -accused, and thereby the present respondent No.3 Chandulal Chanalal was impleaded as accused No.3 in the aforesaid criminal case. The respondents -accused did not plead guilty, and therefore, the prosecution adduced its oral and documentary evidence. The prosecution examined complainant Pravinbhai Chandulal at Exhibit -20. The testimonies of witnesses Chandulal Mathurdas, Chandulal Vitthaldas, Bharatkumar Chandulal, Amrutlal Girdharlal, P.S.I. Jagdishchandra Amrutlal Pathak, Kantaben Chandulal, Gitaben Anandrai were recorded at Exhibits -77, 79, 78, 83, 95, 121 and 125 respectively. During the course of trial, the prosecution produced required documentary evidence like FIR, Panchnama of the scene of offence, Recovery panchnama of weapons etc. After the conclusion of evidence, the ld.Magistrate recorded further statements of the respondents -accused under Section 313 of the Code, wherein they denied all the allegations leveled against them. The ld.Magistrate appreciating the evidence on record, and after considering the arguments advanced on behalf of both parties, delivered the impugned judgment and order dated 25.02.1999 and he was pleased to acquit the respondents -accused for the offences punishable under Section 415, 352, 506(2) r/w. Section 114 of the IPC.

(3.) ON behalf of the appellant -State of Gujarat ld.A.P.P. Mr.Mengde argued that the ld.Magistrate erred in not properly appreciating the evidence on record. That the version of the complainant Pravinbhai Chandulal gets support by independent witnesses. Despite this, the ld.Magistrate erred in not properly appreciating his evidence. That there is ample direct and indirect evidence connecting the accused with the crime. The witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution. That the ld.Magistrate erred in not properly taking into consideration one relevant fact that because the respondent -accused No.1 was keeping illicit relation with the wife of the complainant, she committed suicide. Therefore, it is submitted that the appeal be allowed and the impugned judgment and order passed by the ld.Magistrate be set -aside, and the respondents -accused be appropriately punished for the offences punishable under Section 451, 352, 506(2) r/w. Section 114 of IPC.