IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 918 of 1998 ==========================================================

STATE OF GUJARAT Versus CHANDUBA @ CHANDRIKABEN PRATAPSINH DABHI & ANR.

==========================================================

Appearance:

MS MEGHA CHITALIYA, APP for the Appellant - State HCLS COMMITTEE(4998) for the Respondent No. 1 MR PV PATADIYA(5924) for the Respondent No. 1 ABATED for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 2 ==========================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE S.V. PINTO and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SANJEEV J.THAKER Date : 13/03/2026

JUDGMENT

(PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SANJEEV J.THAKER)

1.1 Feeling aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment and order of acquittal dated 29.08.1998, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gandhinagar in Sessions Case No.21 of 1997, for the offences punishable under Sections 498(A), 302 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, the appellant – State of Gujarat has preferred this appeal as provided under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, “the Code”) inter alia challenging the judgment and order of acquittal in favour of the respondents – accused.

1.2 It is noted that the present appeal has already been abated vide order dated 26.04.2022, qua respondent No.2 – Dilipsinh Pratapsinh Dabhi, as he has expired during the pendency of the appeal.

2. The prosecution case, as unfolded during the trial before the Sessions Court, is as under :

2.1 That on 04.01.1997 at about 11:00 a.m., when the deceased was at home, accused No.2 – mother-in-law viz., Chanduba @ Chandrikaben Pratapsinh Dabhi and accused No.1 – husband of the deceased viz., Dilipsinh Pratapsinh Dabhi had closed the door and entered into the house; and that accused No.1 had poured kerosene from a container, which was in her hand, on the deceased and accused No.2 lit the match stick and thereby committed the offence as alleged. Therefore, the complainant – Manjulaben Dilipsinh Dabhi (the deceased) has filed a complaint against the respondent/s –

accused.

2.2 In pursuance of the complaint lodged by the complainant, the investigating agency collected the relevant documentary evidence and other relevant evidences for the purpose of proving the offence. After having material evidence against the respondents-accused, charge-sheet came to be filed before the concerned learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Gandhinagar. As the said Court lacks jurisdiction to try the offence, it committed the case to the Sessions Court concerned as provided under Section 209 of the Code. Thereafter, the Sessions Case No.21 of 1997 is tried by the learned Session Court.

2.3 Upon committal of the case to the Session Court, the learned Session Judge framed the charge at Exh.6 against the respondents-accused for the aforesaid offence. The respondents-accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

2.4.1 In order to bring home the charge, the prosecution/defence/Court has examined following witnesses before the Sessions Court, which are as under :

2.4.2 The defence has examined following witness, as under :

2.4.3 The Court has examined following witnesses, as under :

2.4.4 The prosecution has produced the following documentary evidence before the trial Court, which are as under :

2.5 On conclusion of evidence, the trial Court put various incriminating circumstances appearing in the evidence to the respondents-accused so as to obtain their explanation/answer as provided under Section 313 of the Code. In the further statement, the respondents accused denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against them as false and further stated that they are innocent and false case has been filed against them.

2.6 After hearing both the parties and after analysis of evidence adduced by the prosecution, the learned Sessions Judge acquitted the accused for the offences as alleged, by holding that the prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt.

3. W