1. By way of present revision application, filed under Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the applicant has prayed to quash and set aside the judgment and order of acquittal dated 18th November, 2002 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Patan in Sessions Case No.423 of 2002 whereby the learned Judge has been pleased to acquit the present respondent Nos.2 and 3 from the offence alleged against them by giving them benefit of doubt.
2. The brief facts of the case is that on 31st March, 2011 the deceased-Laxmanji went to Sankra village to bring her wife, present respondent No.3, back to home. It is the case that when the deceased went to village Sankra to bring her wife, the present respondent No.2, i.e. mother of the respondent No.3, refused to send respondent No.2 with the deceased-Laxmanji. It is further the case that at about 23.00 hours the present complainant, i.e. brother of the deceased, received message that Laxmanji had died due to burning in his father-in-law's house. As the present applicant-original complainant has doubt about the cause of death of his brother, he filed complaint against the present respondent Nos.2 and 3 with Harij Police Station.
3. Thereafter investigation was carried out by the Police Sub Inspector, Harij Police Station, panchnama of seen of offence came to be drawn, seized muddamal in presence of panchas from the seen of offence, recorded statements of witnesses and after completion of investigation, filed charge-sheet against the present respondent Nos.2 and 3 before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class.
4. Thereafter, as the case was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the same was transferred to the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Patan. Thereafter charge came to be framed against the respondent Nos.2 and 3 and the same was read over to them, to which they denied the case against them and claimed to be tried.
5. In order to bring home the charges levelled against the respondent Nos.2 and 3, the prosecution has examined in all 10 witnesses and has also produced documentary evidence on record to support its case.
6. Thereafter, after filing closing pursis by the prosecution, further statements of respondent Nos.2 and 3 under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure came to be recorded, in which they denied the case against them.
7. After considering the oral as well as documentary evidence and after hearing the parties, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Patan vide impugned judgment and order dated 18th November, 2002 acquitted the respondent Nos.2 and 3 – original accused from the charges levelled against them by giving them benefit of doubt.
8. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said judgment and order of acquittal dated 18th November, 2002, the applicant-original complainant has preferred the present revision application before this Court.
9. Heard Ms.Banna Dutta, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr.H.L. Jani, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent No.1-State. Though served, neither the respondent Nos.2 and 3 nor counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3 are present.
10. Ms.Dutta, learned counsel for the applicant, states that the order of acquittal passed by the learned Judge is illegal, unjust and bad in law and hence, the same deserves to be quash and set aside by this Court. She has read the charge as well as oral evidence produced on record and argued that the learned Judge has committed grave error in acquitting the respondent Nos.2 and 3. She has further contended that from the medical evidence prescribed in the postmortem note, prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt the cause of death. The cause of death is strangulation and not burn injuries. First the deceased was strangulated and thereafter the deceased was set on fire. She has further contended that the Investigating Officer is totally negligent and because of his negligency, ligature is not recovered from the place of the offence. She has further contended that the question regarding last seen together is established from the evidence of Bhavna and Prahladji, but the learned Judge has not considered the said issue. She, therefore, contended that looking to the evidence produced on record and circumstantial evidence, judgment and order of acquittal is required to be quashed and set aside and the present respondent Nos.2 and 3 are required to be punished for the offence alleged against them.
11. Heard Mr.H.L. Jani, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent No.1-State and also perused papers produced before me. It is the duty of the prosecution to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. In the present case, no eye-witness had examined. Even the Investigating Officer has also not drawn recovery panchnama. It appears from the papers that the investigating officer remained totally negligent. No eye-witness has been examined by the prosecution to support its case. Witness Nos.2 and 3 have not even stated in their statements about any quarrel between the deceased and present respondent Nos.2 and 3. It is true that issue regarding last seen to gather is established, but as per the law laid down by the Apex Court, last seen together is a weakest evidence. There is no other corroborative evidence to support the issue regarding last seen together. Even ligature is not recovered. I am of the opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt.
12. In view of above, I am of the opinion that the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Patan is just and proper and need not require any interference. Hence, the present revision application is hereby dismissed. The judgment and order of acquittal dated 18th November, 2002 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Patan in Sessions Case No.423 of 2002 is hereby confirmed. Bail bond, if any, shall stand discharged. Record and proceedings, if any, be sent back to the Court concerned forthwith. Rule is discharged.
(Z. K. Saiyed, J) Anup