The appellate court upheld the acquittal of the accused due to insufficient evidence and contradictions in witness testimonies, reinforcing the presumption of innocence.

JUDGMENT :

MAULIK J. SHELAT, J.

1. The present Acquittal Appeal has been filed under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, challenging the judgment and order dated 30.11.2002 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Surendranagar in Session Case No. 12 of 1998. The State is in appeal before us. By way of the impugned judgment and order, the accused have been acquitted of all the charges levelled against them under Sections 143, 147, 302, 498(a) and 304-B read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

2. The short facts of the prosecution case are as under:

2.1 The prosecution alleges that three months prior to the incident, the deceased, Jyotsnaba, married Accused No. 1, Indrasinh Ajitsinh Zala. The other accused, Balbhadrasinh Ajitsinh Zala (elder brother of the accused), Mahendrasinh Ajitsinh Zala (Younger brother of the accused), Kanakba Ajitsinh Zala (Mother-in-Law), and Gitaben Balbhadrasinh Zala (Sister in law of the accused) were also involved. During the marriage, the deceased-Jyotsnaba was subjected to mental and physical torture, demanding dowry by the accused.

2.2 On August 22, 1997, all the accused formed an unlawful assembly and tortured Jyotsnaba. With the common intention to cause her death, they forced her to consume poison. Jyotsnaba was taken to C.U. Shah Medical Centre, Surendranagar, where she subsequently died during course of medical treatment.

2.3 The deceased’s brother, Rajendrasinh Gagubha Jadeja, lodged First Information Report (FIR) as CR (I) No. 149 of 1997 on 23.08.1997 at 1:30 PM with Surendranagar City Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 302, 498A, 304B, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

2.4 The Investigating Officer recorded witness statements, prepared panchnamas, collected medical documents, and obtained the post-mortem report. Upon completion of the investigation, the Investigating Officer submitted the chargesheet to the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Surendranagar. Given the seriousness of the alleged offenses, the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate committed the case to the Sessions Court, Surendranagar, as per Section 209 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

2.5 Upon committal of the case to the Sessions Court, Surendranagar and after appreciating oral and documentary evidence on record, learned Sessions Court, has found so many contradictions in the version of witnesses, who have been examined by the prosecution and the story enumerated by complainant as well as other supporting witnesses, are not found trust worthy and taking into consideration the testimony of the Defence witness no. 1. Thus, considering the evidence on record, the learned Sessions Court, has acquitted all the accused from all the charges.

3. We have heard learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Mr. Himanshu K. Patel at length, who has taken us through various oral evidence as well as documentary evidence, which are on record. We have independently examined and appreciated evidence of witnesses.

4. Learned Sessions Judge, framed charges vide Exh.11 against the Respondents-Accused for the aforesaid offences. The Respondents-Accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. They were tried for the said offences and in order to bring home the charge, the prosecution has examined 15 prosecution witnesses and also produced 18 documentary evidence, which are as under:

Oral Evidences