Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
CR.MA/13598/2009 2/ 2 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CRIMINAL
MISC.APPLICATION No. 13598 of 2009
In
CRIMINAL
APPEAL No. 2424 of 2009
=========================================================
STATE
OF GUJARAT - Applicant(s)
Versus
HAMID
PRATAPSINH RAJ & 4 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
KP RAVAL, APP for Applicant(s) : 1,
None for Respondent(s) : 1 -
5.
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL
and
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE Z.K.SAIYED
Date
: 07/05/2010
ORAL
ORDER
(Per
: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL)
The
present application for leave to Appeal is directed against the
Judgment and order of acquittal dated 31.8.2009 passed by the
learned Additional Sessions Judge & Presiding Officer, Fast
Track Court, Anand, in Sessions Case No. 17 of 2008, whereby the
accused have been acquitted for the offence under Sections 302, 201,
396, 397, 120-B, 412 of I.P. Code.
We
have considered the Judgment and the reasons recorded by the learned
Special Judge. We have considered the record and proceedings. We
have heard learned A.P.P. Mr. K.P. Raval for the State.
It
appears to us that as per the evidence on record the chain in the
case of circumstantial evidence is not proved. Not only that, but,
the discovery panchnama, recovery panchnama, identification parade
panchnama are not proved and any of such witnesses have not
supported the case of the prosecution. Learned A.P.P. has not been
able to show any material on record which may support the case of
the prosecution. On the aspect of identification parade though
learned Executive Magistrate has supported the case of the
prosecution, but, in the holding of identification parade the
requisite procedure is not followed and further the panchas of such
parade have not supported the case of the prosecution.
Under
these circumstances, if the learned Additional Sessions Judge has
found that the prosecution has not proved the case beyond reasonable
doubt, the same cannot be said to be erroneous.
Hence,
leave does not deserve to be granted, therefore, not granted.
Application disposed off accordingly.
(JAYANT
PATEL,J.)
(Z.K.SAIYED,
J.)
sas
Top