MR.JUSTICE J.R.VORA

1 All the above mentioned proceedings are preferred challenging the judgment and order delivered by Sessions Judge, Mehsana, on 7th of January, 2005 in Sessions Case No. 249 of 2004.

2 It is stated that justice hurried is justice buried. The present is a glaring example of undue haste by the then Sessions Judge, Mehsana, in disposing of the trial and acquitting the accused for the serious offences punishable under Section 498-A read with Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 306 read with Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code. Before considering the respective Appeals and the Revision Application on merits, few dates are required to be noted, which will demonstrate the undue haste by the then learned Sessions Judge, Mehsana, in disposing of the trial and acquitting the accused and convicting the original accused No.1 for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code only, and that too, sentencing him to undergo only three days S.I., possibly knowing that, the said accused No.1 husband has remained in jail as an under-trial for three days and, therefore, if he is sentenced to undergo three days S.I., he will not have to go to jail again. The case was committed to the Sessions Court by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mehsana, on 2.12. 2004, under Section 209 of the Code of Criminal Procedure as case was sessions triable. It reached the Sessions Court on 16.12.2004. In-charge Sessions Judge, Mehsana, on 16.12.2004 transferred the said case to the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sixth Fast Track Court Shri A.H. Shah. Again the same was transferred to the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Mehsana, who on 20.12.2004, fixed the matter for framing of the charge. The learned Sessions Judge framed the charges against all the accused on 29.12.2004 for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 306, 201 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code. On the very day, all the accused pleaded not guilty. On 1.1.2005, the prosecution submitted the list of witnesses to be examined on behalf of the prosecution and requested to issue the witness summons to as many as 12 witnesses and the learned Sessions Judge issued the witness summons and the next date was fixed on 7.1.2005. On 7.1.2005 itself, in all five witnesses came to be examined by the Sessions Court and the rest of the witnesses came to be dropped by the prosecution. Out of the five witnesses, two main witnesses i .e. maternal uncle and maternal aunt of the deceased turned hostile. Still, the prosecution submitted closing purshis on the very day i.e. 7.01.2005 and the remaining witnesses against whom witness summons were already issued, came to be dropped. On 7.01.2005, Application Exhibit-7 was submitted on behalf of the prosecution by which the prosecution submitted list of 17 documents to be produced along with the necessary documents, however, the learned Sessions Judge exhibited only four documents. On 7.1.2005 itself, further statements of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure came to be recorded. On 07.01.2005 itself, the arguments on behalf of the prosecution as well as the defence came to be heard by the learned Sessions Judge, Mehsana, and on the very day i.e. 7.1.2005, the then Sessions Judge, Mehsana, acquitted all the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 306 read with 114 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code and even acquitted the original accused Nos. 2 to 4 for the offence punishable under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code also and convicted the original accused No.1 husband for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code by imposing the punishment of three days simple imprisonment and fine of Rs. 3,000/- only. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment and order delivered by the learned Sessions Judge, Mehsana, on 7th of January, 2005 in Sessions Case No. 249 of 2004, the State is before this Court.

3 Prosecution case and b