STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. BHAVANSINH TALSINH RATHOD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned A. P. P. Ms. Krina Calla appearing for the appellant-State. The appeal is admitted.

(2.) THIS appeal is preferred under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, "the Code") against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 29. 04. 2009 passed by the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Gandhinagar in Sessions Case No. 36 of 2008.

(3.) AS per the prosecution case, complainant Lalsing Fatesinh Chauhan gave complaint at Dabhoda police station on 27. 03. 2008. Initially, it was registered as A. D. No. 15 of 2008. After the dead body was recovered from canal, inquest panchnama was drawn and the slip was recovered from the pocket of the deceased. As per the complaint, Lalsing is the elder brother of deceased Pravinbhai. Pravinbhai got married with Kapilaben at Borpura and, during his marriage, he had one son aged about 1 and half years. As per the prosecution case, Kapilaben-wife of the deceased was pregnant and had gone to her parental home. Subsequently, Kapilaben lodged complaint under Section 498a of I. P. C. before the Court of Mansa and filed maintenance application against deceased Pravinsing. As per the prosecution case, the slip received by the complainant mentions the names of the respondents and it is stated therein that they were demanding Rs. 5 lacs from deceased Pravinbhai and they had also threatened him that if he will not give the amount of Rs. 5 lacs, then his family members will be implicated in the Court case. The investigating officer, on the strength of the complaint given by the complainant, carried out investigation and, after completion of investigation, filed chargesheet against the respondents. The chargesheet was filed in the Court of learned 4th Additional Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate First Class, Gandhinagar, who, in turn, made over the case to the Sessions Court under Section 209 of the Code, as the case was exclusively triable by the Sessions Court. The learned Judge, after recording the statements, extensively held that the prosecution has not proved involvement of the respondents in the commission of offence punishable under Sections 306 and 114 of I. P. C. The learned Judge held that the evidence adduced by the prosecution do not inspire necessary confidence. The panch-witnesses have turned hostile and even suicide note is not supported or corroborated by any other evidence on record of the case to indicate the involvement of the respondents in the commission of offence. Therefore, the learned Judge acquitted the respondents for the offence punishable under Sections 306 and 114 of I. P. C.