Gujarat High Court High Court

State vs Kanubhai on 9 December, 2010

Gujarat High Court
State vs Kanubhai on 9 December, 2010
Author: A.L.Dave,&Nbsp;
   Gujarat High Court Case Information System 

  
  
    

 
 
    	      
         
	    
		   Print
				          

  


	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	


 


	 

CR.MA/5899/2010	 2/ 2	ORDER 
 
 

	

 

IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
 

 


 

CRIMINAL
MISC.APPLICATION No. 5899 of 2010
 

In


 

CRIMINAL
APPEAL No. 905 of 2010
 

With


 

CRIMINAL
APPEAL No. 905 of 2010
 

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

 

STATE
OF GUJARAT - Applicant(s)
 

Versus
 

KANUBHAI
DAHYABHAI HARIJAN & 2 - Respondent(s)
 

=========================================================
 
Appearance
: 
PUBLIC
PROSECUTOR for
Applicant(s) : 1, 
None for Respondent(s) : 1 -
3. 
=========================================================


 
	  
	 
	  
		 
			 

CORAM
			: 
			
		
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			MR.JUSTICE A.L.DAVE
		
	
	 
		 
		 
			 

and
		
	
	 
		 
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			MR.JUSTICE VIJAY MANOHAR SAHAI
		
	

 

 
 


 

Date
: 09/12/2010 

 

 
 
ORAL
ORDER

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

1. This
is an application for leave to appeal to challenge the judgment and
order rendered by the Sessions Court, Anand in Sessions Case No.63 of
2009 on 29.1.2010 acquitting the respondents of the charge punishable
under Sections 498-A and 307 of IPC.

2. It
transpires from the judgment that there are two different
inconsistent histories given by the victim to two Doctors. It also
appears that sweater with which the deceased was sought to be sat on
fire is claimed to have been recovered and seized by the police as
per the evidence of the panch witness. However, no such sweater is
produced before the Court as muddamal. It also appears that fire
wood used for cooking was found to be carrying piece of burnt clothes
possibly that of the injured victim and, therefore, possibilities of
accident once are not ruled out. Under the circumstances, we are of
the view that the trial Court was justified in recording acquittal.
Hence, leave is refused. The appeal is dismissed as a consequence.

(A.L.Dave,J)

(V.M.Sahai,J)

pathan

   

Top