The respondents came to be tried by Sessions Court, Surendranagar in Sessions Case No.64 of 1991 for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 201, 304(B) and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and were acquitted by judgment and order dated 28/04/1992. 2. As per the prosecution case, the alleged incident occurred on 09/02/1991 at about 12:00 noon. The respondents accused persons allegedly committed murder of Induba by causing such injury, as was sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause death and, thereafter with a view to destroy evidence and to escape from the punishment, cremated her dead body and thereby committed offences punishable under Sections 302, 201 read with Section 34 of the IPC. On basis of which, FIR was registered, case was investigated and chargesheet was filed in the Court of learned JMFC, Limdi, who in turn, committed the case to the Court of Sessions at Surendranagar and Sessions Case No.64 of 1991 came to be registered.
2.1 Charge was framed against the accused at Exh.2 to which accused persons – respondents herein pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The trial Court after recording evidence, came to the conclusion that prosecution was not able to prove the case against the accused persons and ultimately recorded acquittal and hence this appeal by the State of Gujarat.
3. We have heard learned APP, Mr.Dabhi for the appellant and learned Advocate Mr.Anandjiwala for the respondents – accused. We have examined the record and proceedings.
4. We find that upon death of Induba, her parents were informed and they had attended the funeral and cremation of the deceased. They did not have any grievance till then. But, after two days, the FIR is filed by them alleging illtreatment by the accused persons and their relatives and demand of money etc. Therefore, here is a case where FIR is delayed by two days.
5. We also find that no postmortem is performed on the dead body because till cremation or even two days thereafter, the first informant had no grievance. He did not make any grievance, complaint or show any suspects about the death of Induba. As such, no postmortem is performed and there is no evidence about the cause of death of Induba where the cause was attributable to any assault on her, if so, by whom.
6. It is, therefore, not possible to rule out the possibility of cause of death of the deceased being homicidal and unless that is proved by the prosecution, there is no question of connecting the accused with the crime. This aspect has been appropriately considered by the trial Court while recording acquittal of the accused.
7. In our view, no interference is required with the judgment and order impugned, as the same is just, legal and proper and there being absence of any adverse finding. The appeal must fail and stands dismissed.
(A L DAVE, J.) (A J DESAI, J.) sompura