DHARISHI NAMORI MAHESHWARI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These appeals arise out of a judgment and order rendered by Sessions Court, Kutch, Camp at Gandhidham, in Sessions Case No.252 of 1999 on 10th September, 2001. In the said Sessions Case, four accused persons were tried for the offences punishable under Sections 504, 302 and 302 read with Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code.

(2.) We have heard learned Advocate, Mr. Jayprakash Umot, for Dharishi Namori Maheshwari, appellant in Criminal Appeal No.864 of 2001 and learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Mr. Mengdey, for the State. Learned Advocate, Mr. Umot, also appears for respondent No.1 in Criminal Appeal No.85 of 2002. Though notice was served, no one appears to defend the case of respondents No.2 and 3 in Criminal Appeal No.85 of 2002. On being requested, Mr. Umot agrees to take care of the interest of respondents No.2 and 3 also as amicus curiae.

(3.) Learned Advocate, Mr. Umot, submitted that the case depends mainly on evidence of two witnesses, who are projected by the prosecution as eye-witnesses. They are the first informant, P.W.1-Gopalbhai Muljibhai Maheshwari (Exhibit 11) and P.W.4-Bayabai Naranbhai (Exhibit 16). Both of them are relatives of the deceased and are, therefore, interested witnesses. According to Mr. Umot, P.W.l-Gopalbhai, though claims to be an eye-witness to the incident, the admissions made by him during cross- examination clearly reveal that he could not have been an eye-witness to the incident. He submitted that even the trial Court has not believed him to be an eye-witness to the incident.