Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

During the course of trial before the learned Sessions Court, the prosecution examined several witnesses with a view to prove the case against the accused. The prosecution had examined complainant Gopal Bharatbhai, PW-1, Ex.10. However, the said witness has not supported the case of the prosecution and therefore, he was declared hostile. The prosecution had also examined one Sunil Shankarlal, brother-in-law of the accused at Ex.11. The said witness has also not supported the case of the prosecution and R/CR.A/266/1991 JUDGMENT therefore, he was also declared hostile. The prosecution has relied upon the deposition given by PW-3, Balwantbhai Chaturbhai, Ex.12. The said witness is the brother of deceased Hansaben. The said witness has stated during the course of his deposition that deceased Hansaben used to come at the residence of the said witness and at that time she was complaining about the behaviour of the accused. The accused was quarreling with Hansaben. He was having the habit of drinking liquor. He was also giving threat to Hansaben that he would kill Hansaben by pouring kerosene on her. The said witness has also stated that Hansaben filed an application under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for getting maintenance against the accused. However, the said matter was thereafter settled. Thereafter in July 1987, Hansaben was sent to the house of the accused. Thus the said witness has deposed against the accused with regard to his conduct of giving harassment to Hansaben. However, the said witness has not seen the incident which has occurred on 2.9.88. He came to know about the incident when one Mukeshbhai informed him that his sister has died and therefore he rushed to the place of incident. When he reached the house of the accused, he came to know that the accused had pressed the neck of deceased Hansaben and thereafter he had run away from the spot. The prosecution had also examined PW-4, Ex.19, Manekben Motilal who was working as a Woman First-grade Constable in Karanj Police Station. The said witness has produced the copy of the NC register at Ex.20. The Investigating Officer, Gyansagar Ahuja was examined as PW-5, Ex.21 by the prosecution. The said witness has carried out the investigation and R/CR.A/266/1991 JUDGMENT filed the chargesheet against the accused. The PSI who had recorded the first information report on the basis of the information given by witness Gopal Bharabhai had expired and witness Gopal Bharatbhai had turned hostile and therefore, the learned advocate of the accused has taken objection against exhibiting the FIR. However, the FIR was exhibited at Ex.27. The prosecution has examined Dr.Nayankumar Natwarlal Parikh, PW-8, Ex.33, who had carried out the post-mortem of deceased Hansaben. The said expert has stated during the course of his deposition about the injuries received by the deceased. He has stated that the deceased had received seven external injuries and therefore he has narrated about such injuries in column No.17 of the post-mortem note. All such injuries were ante-mortem in nature. The said witness further stated that these injuries could be caused by any hard and blunt substance by pressing the neck. All the external and internal injuries were sufficient, according to the opinion of the said witness, to cause death of the deceased in the ordinary course of nature. He has stated that the cause of death of the deceased is shock due to asphyxia of cardio- respiratory arrest. During the course of cross-examination, the said witness has admitted that the external injuries and internal injuries shown in column No.17 and 19 respectively in the post-mortem notes were also possible in partial hanging if suicide is committed by the victim herself.

On the other hand, learned advocate Shri K.B.Anandjiwala appearing for the respondent has supported the judgment and order of acquittal rendered by the learned Trial Court. The learned advocate for the respondent accused mainly submitted that most of the prosecution witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution. The complainant himself has turned hostile. The learned advocate further referred to the deposition given by PW-2, Sunil Shankarlal who is the brother-in-law of the accused and submitted that the said witness has also not supported the case of the prosecution. The witness Balwantbhai Chaturbhai, PW-3 is not an eye-witness of the incident and therefore his deposition is required to be discarded by this Court. The learned advocate further referred to the deposition given by PW-8, Dr.Nayankumar Natwarlal Parikh and submitted that during the course of cross-examination, the said witness has admitted that external as well as internal injuries shown in column Nos.17 and 19 respectively in the post-mortem notes were also possible in partial hanging if suicide is committed by the victim herself. The learned advocate, thereafter, referred to the impugned judgment and submitted that the learned Trial Court has taken into consideration the documentary as well as oral R/CR.A/266/1991 JUDGMENT evidence produced on record and thereafter rightly held that the prosecution has failed to establish the case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt and therefore rightly acquitted the accused for the charges levelled against him and therefore when the learned Trial Court has acquitted the accused, this Court may not entertain this appeal while exercising powers under section 378 read with section 386 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

(3) Similarly, PW-2, Sunil Shankarlal, has also not supported the case of the prosecution.

R/CR.A/266/1991 JUDGMENT (4) Dr.Nayankumar Parikh, PW-8, though stated in his examination-in-chief that all the seven injuries could be caused by any hard and blunt substance by pressing the neck, during his cross-examination he has admitted that such injuries were possible in partial hanging if suicide is committed by the victim herself.