Gujarat High Court High Court

State vs Sadiyabhai on 30 April, 2010

Gujarat High Court
State vs Sadiyabhai on 30 April, 2010
Author: Jayant Patel,&Nbsp;Honourable Z.K.Saiyed,&Nbsp;
   Gujarat High Court Case Information System 

  
  
    

 
 
    	      
         
	    
		   Print
				          

  


	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	


 


	 

CR.MA/13236/2009	 1/ 2	ORDER 
 
 

	

 

IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
 

 


 

CRIMINAL
MISC.APPLICATION No. 13236 of 2009
 

In


 

CRIMINAL
APPEAL No. 2355 of 2009
 

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

 

STATE
OF GUJARAT - Applicant(s)
 

Versus
 

SADIYABHAI
MADIYABHAI MEDA - Respondent(s)
 

=========================================================
 
Appearance
: 
MR
LB DABHI, LD. ADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
for
Applicant(s) : 1, 
None for Respondent(s) :
1, 
=========================================================


 
	  
	 
	  
		 
			 

CORAM
			: 
			
		
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			MR.JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL
		
	
	 
		 
		 
			 

and
		
	
	 
		 
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			MR.JUSTICE Z.K.SAIYED
		
	

 

Date
: 30/04/2010
 

ORAL
ORDER

(Per
: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL)

The
present application for leave to prefer appeal is directed against
the judgment and order dated 30th July 2009 passed by the
learned Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No.148 of 2008, whereby the
accused has been acquitted for the offences under Section 307, 114
read with Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act.

We
have considered the judgment and reasons recorded by the learned
Special Judge. We have considered Record and Proceedings. We have
heard Mr.L.B. Dabhi, learned Additional Public Prosecutor.

It
appears to us that as per the evidence on record, nobody has been
injured on account of alleged incident. Panchas have not supported
the case of the prosecution. At the seen of offence no marks are
found. There is no recovery of the weapon.

Under
these circumstances, if the learned Sessions Judge has found that
prosecution has not been able to prove the case beyond reasonable
doubt, the same cannot be said to be erroneous. Hence, leave does
not deserve to be granted and, therefore, not granted. The
application is disposed of accordingly.

(Jayant
Patel, J) (Z. K. Saiyed, J)

Anup

   

Top