Gujarat High Court High Court

State vs Amarsing on 26 November, 2010

Gujarat High Court
State vs Amarsing on 26 November, 2010
Author: A.L.Dave,&Nbsp;
   Gujarat High Court Case Information System 

  
  
    

 
 
    	      
         
	    
		   Print
				          

  


	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	


 


	 

CR.MA/1957/2010	 2/ 2	ORDER 
 
 

	

 

IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
 

 


 

CRIMINAL
MISC.APPLICATION No. 1957 of 2010
 

In


 

CRIMINAL
APPEAL No. 354 of 2010
 

with
 

CRIMINAL
APPEAL No. 354 of 2010
 

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

 

STATE
OF GUJARAT - Applicant(s)
 

Versus
 

AMARSING
RATAN DEVDHA - Respondent(s)
 

=========================================================
 
Appearance
: 
MR
KL PANDYA, APP for Applicant(s) : 1, 
MR MUKESH B DAVE for
Respondent(s) :
1, 
=========================================================


 
	  
	 
	  
		 
			 

CORAM
			: 
			
		
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			MR.JUSTICE A.L.DAVE
		
	
	 
		 
		 
			 

and
		
	
	 
		 
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			MR.JUSTICE VIJAY MANOHAR SAHAI
		
	

 

 
 


 

Date
: 26/11/2010 

 

 
 
COMMON
ORAL ORDER

(Per
: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.L.DAVE)

An
FIR was lodged with Dahod (Rural) Police Station for the offences
punishable under Sections 395 and 397 of IPC and under Section
25(1)(A) of the Arms Act arraigning about 7 persons committing the
said offence. Six of them were found to be absconding. However, the
respondent was apprehended and prosecuted. The trial Court, by
judgment and order dated 28.4.2009 in Sessions Case No.343 of 2004,
acquitted the respondent accused and hence, this application for
leave to appeal by the State.

From
the judgment of the trial Court, we find that there is discrepancy
about the time of the incident, about the identity of the accused and
there was no TI parade held during the course of investigation. It
also emerges that there was animosity between the residents of
village Itava and Limdabara. This has been visualised by the trial
Court and a possibility for false implication. We also agree with the
view. In this set of circumstances, leave is refused. Consequently,
the appeal shall stand dismissed.

 

 


 

								(A.L.Dave,
J.)
 

 


 

Sreeram.							(V.M.Sahai,
J.)
 

 



    

 
	   
      
      
	    
		      
	   
      
	  	    
		   Top