STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. ZINA ALIAS ZINA RANCHHODBHAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present appeal, under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is directed against the judgement and order of acquittal dated 31/1/1992 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Surendranagar in Sessions Case No. 6 of 1989 whereby the accused was acquitted of the charges leveled against him.

(2.) THE brief facts of the prosecution case are as under: 2. 1) on 26/9/1987 when complainant Jasuben Ravjibhai Patel went to take grass with her brother-in-law Pravinbhai, accused Kodi Jina Ranchodbhai came there and caught hold her and asked her for having relation with him. When complainant refused to do so, accused forcibly committed rape on her and thereby committed offences punishable under Section 376, 506 (2) of the Indian Penal Code. Therefore, a complaint was lodged against the accused person for the offences as alleged above. 2. 2) Necessary investigation was carried out and statements of witnesses were recorded. Ultimately, chargesheet was filed against the respondent before the court of learned JMFC, Muli. 2. 3) Thereafter, as the case was exclusively triable by the Sessions Court, the same was committed to the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Surendranagar under Section 209 of Criminal Procedure Code. The case was numbered as Sessions Case No. 62 of 1989. The trial was initiated against the respondent-accused. 2. 4) To prove the guilt against the accused the prosecution has examined following witnesses: <FRM>JUDGEMENT_1349_TLGJ0_2009Html1.htm</FRM> 2. 5) In order to support the case, the prosecution has produced the following documents. <FRM>JUDGEMENT_1349_TLGJ0_2009Html2.htm</FRM> 2. 6) At the end of trial, after recording the statement of the accused under Section 313 of Cr. P. C. , and hearing arguments on behalf of prosecution and the defence, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Surendranagar acquitted the respondent of all the charges leveled against him by judgement and order dated 31/1/1992. 2. 7) Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgement and order passed by the Additional Sessions Court, Surendranagar, the appellant-State has preferred the present appeal.

(3.) THOUGH served, the respondent-accused has not remained present.