The appellate court upheld the acquittal, emphasizing the prosecution's failure to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt due to contradictions in witness testimonies and lack of direct evidence.

JUDGMENT :

MAULIK J. SHELAT, J.

1. The present Acquittal Appeal has been filed under Section 378 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, challenging the judgment and order dated 26.02.1997 passed by Additional Sessions Judge (Court No. 1), Bhuj at Kutch in Session Case No. 9 of 1996. 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 302, 363 and 366 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

2. Respondent no. 2-Original accused no. 2, Raja Teja Harijan has been reportedly died and therefore, this Court vide its order dated 01.08.2022 directed abatement of the appeal qua respondent no. 2-original accused no. 2.

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

3.1 That on 30.04.1995 at around 9:00 AM, the complainant, namely, Uga Bhikha and his wife, Badhibai Uga Bhikha had gone to the house of one Merubha Narsangji Jadeja for house repair work and at that time, his two daughters, namely, Naviben and Shantaben, were at home. At around 13:00 hours, Jadeja Shivubha Madhavsinh-a resident of the complainant’s village Kuda Jampar at Taluka Rapar, had informed the complainant that there is smoke emitting from his house and informed him that there may be a fire in the house of the complainant. So, the complainant and his wife and other persons immediately rushed and reached the house of the complainant. It appears that door of the complainant’s house was closed from inside, which was opened by complainant applying force. When the complainant went inside the house, he saw that his daughter, Shantaben had been burnt alive and was shouting for help but at low decibel voice. When he had asked Shantaben about how it happened, she responded that Raja and Mohan had poured kerosene and burnt her alive and kidnapped her sister-Naviben and ran away. It appears that later on, missing Naviben (another daughter of the complainant) and her cousin sister-Sumiben, who happens to be the real daughter of the brother of the complainant, namely, Pethabhai Bhikhabhai Harijan, were found from a well on 02.05.1995.

3.2 Thus, FIR came to be lodged against accused, who have been charged with the aforesaid offences on 17.02.1997/30/01/1997 at Exh.1. The charges have been framed against the accused at Exh.1. Several witnesses have been examined by the prosecution.

3.3 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 and his wife as well as other supporting witnesses, are not found trustworthy. Thus, considering the evidence on record, the learned Sessions Court, has acquitted both the accused from all the charges.

4. We have heard learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Mr. Utkarsh Sharma 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.

5. It appears that accused have not pleaded guilty and the prosecution has examined following 11 witnesses and submitted various documentary evidence, to prove the charges against the accused.

Oral Evidences