IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1149 of 1998 FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MAULIK J.SHELAT and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. M. RAVAL ==========================================================

Approved for Reporting Yes No ==========================================================

STATE OF GUJARAT Versus JAGDISH @ JAGO NARSINHBHAI SHRIMALI ==========================================================

Appearance:

MR. ROHAN SHAH, APP for the Appellant(s) No. 1 MR BC DAVE(245) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1 ==========================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MAULIK J.SHELAT and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. M. RAVAL Date : 06/02/2026

ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. M. RAVAL)

1. State has preferred the present appeal challenging the judgment and order of acquittal dated 11.09.1998, passed by the learned Sessions Judge of Ahmedabad (Rural) in Sessions Case No. 74 of 1997, whereby the original accused-respondent herein was acquitted of the offense punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code

2. The facts of the prosecution, as revealed from the record, in a nutshell, are as follows:-

2.1 Deceased Sarlaben was unmarried and staying with her parents in Rajpur Gomtipur, Ahmedabad. She was knowing the accused from her childhood. Since last three months before lodging of this complaint, they were in love. The accused was married and staying with his wife Kusumben in Shantiniketan Society’s house No. 1 behind RTO office and working in the courier Company on CG Road. From before one week of lodging of the Complaint, they both were staying together as husband and wife in a rented house in Rohitnagar Society, near Ghatlodia- Jantanagar crossing. The deceased Sarlaben was working in Pharmaceutical Company. On the day of incident i.e., 10.02.1997, the deceased Sarlaben and the accused were at home. The accused got enraged when she asked the accusd that she had pain in abdomen and therefore, she was sleeping. He also torn out the photographs of both of them. Therefore, the deceased Saralaben also got enraged. The Accused who was enraged, sprinkled Kerosene on her from the tin and set her to fire by lightening the burning state and fell. The adjoining people extinguished her. By the time, the accused brought a ricksaw and carried her for treatment. On the way near Chitrakut Appartment on Sola Road. Bhavnaben PW 1 and Meenaben PW 2 met them and therefore, the accused took them in ricksaw and they all went to VS Hospital in the night for treatment. She was conscious in the hospital.

2.2 Police Head Constable Mr. Ranchodbhai Limbabhai, based on the report forwarded by the Police Station Officer, registered an FIR against the present respondent-original accused for the offense punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code.

Further, the investigation was handed over to Police Inspector Shri Parmeshwarprasad Pande (PW 10), who took over the investigation, recorded statements of various witnesses, and prepared a panchnama of the place of offense. Afterward, further investigation was handed over to Police Inspector Mr. KP Patel (examined as PW 12, Exh 28), who had also recorded statements of the witnesses and the victim. As Sarlaben expired on 20 February 1997, he prepared an inquest panchnama and sent the body for post-mortem.

2.3 After completion of the investigation, the police filed the charge sheet punishable under Section 302 of the IPC before the concerned jurisdictional Magistrate. Since the case was sessions triable, the same was committed to the learned Sessions Court under the provisions of Section 209 of the CrPC. Vide Exhibit 5, charges were framed against the present respondent, and vide Exhibit 6, his plea was recorded wherein he pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed to be tried.

2.4 The prosecution, in order to bring home the charges, has examined twelve witnesses as well as various documentary evidence; more particularly, the co