(Per : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.L.DAVE) 1 The respondents in this appeal were accused before the Sessions Court, Surendranagar, in Sessions Case No. 80 of 1989, facing charges for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 306, 302 read with 304(B), 34 read with 304(B) of the Indian Penal Code. By judgment and order dated 13.2.1992, the Trial Court acquitted the accused and hence this Appeal by the State against the acquittal.
2 Respondent No.1 – Zala Tembubha Andubha is reported to have expired. The appeal against him, therefore, would stand abated. Rest of the respondents-original accused have been served with the notices who have chosen not to contest this appeal.
3 We have heard learned APP Mr. Neeraj Soni for the appellant – State of Gujarat. He has taken us through the record and proceedings. It transpires from the record that the prosecution case is mainly depending on circumstantial evidence. As one of the witnesses – Bhavubha Mamubha, who reached the place of incident soon after the incident, is projected to be a witness, has not supported the prosecution case and has been declared as hostile.
4 The cause of death of the deceased Chandraba, as emerged from the Postmortem Note, is shock due to extensive burns. The Postmortem Note is produced at Exhibit-15. The deceased died on account of burn injuries.
5 As per the prosecution case, the incident occurred at about 5.00 a.m. in the morning, however, the FIR was given by Dosubha Shivubha, the father of the deceased, who is examined at Exhibit-13. He contends that he had not lodged any complaint but the police had obtained his signatures on large number of blank papers. He admits that the FIR on record bears his signature but he disowns the contents of the same. As such, the FIR having not been proved, the same is not exhibited.
6 There is total lack of evidence on precise motive. Only one of the witnesses says that the deceased and the accused had matrimonial disputes but that would not connect, per se, the accused with the offence. On the contrary, there is total lack of evidence on motive. The Trial Court has not taken into consideration all these aspects. We are of the opinion that the judgment of the Trial Court acquitting the accused from the charges is well reasoned and we also agree with the reasonings given by the Trial Court. Hence, the appeal is dismissed accordingly. Bail bonds, if any, shall stand cancelled.
(A.L. DAVE, J.) (A.J. DESAI, J.) pnnair