Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
CR.MA/11980/2010 3/ 3 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CRIMINAL
MISC.APPLICATION No. 11980 of 2010
In
CRIMINAL
APPEAL No. 1708 of 2010
=========================================================
STATE
OF GUJARAT - Applicant(s)
Versus
KHUNABHAI
KALIABHAI MEDA & 4 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
KP RAVAL, APP for Applicant(s) : 1,
None for Respondent(s) : 1 -
5.
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE RAVI R.TRIPATHI
and
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE P.P.BHATT
Date
: 24/02/2011
ORAL
ORDER
(Per
: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE RAVI R.TRIPATHI)
1. The present
application is filed by the State of Gujarat through Public
Prosecutor, High Court of Gujarat seeking leave to appeal against
judgment and order dated 12.01.2010 passed by the learned Sessions
Judge, Dahod in Sessions Case No.214 of 2008.
1.1 The learned
Sessions Judge recorded acquittal under Section 235(1) of the Code of
Criminal Procedure for the offence under Sections 143, 504 and 436 of
the Indian Penal Code.
2. Heard learned APP
Mr.Raval for the applicant – State.
3. Learned APP
strenuously tried to convince the Court that the order passed by the
learned Sessions Judge is required to be interfered with and this
leave to appeal is required to be granted and the appeal is required
to be admitted.
4. Having perused the
judgment and order and the relevant evidence, this Court is of the
opinion that the learned Judge has rightly recorded acquittal.
4.1 In para-9, the
learned Sessions Judge has considered evidence of number of
witnesses, who have stated to be the witnesses of the incident of
putting house on fire. The learned Judge has appreciated the
evidence of the complainant – Sumaben Fakrubhai Meda –
Exh.9. The learned Judge has appreciated the evidence of Badliben
Narubhai Meda – Exh.12 in para-10. The learned Judge has also
appreciated the evidence of Thavriben Fatiyabhai Meda – Exh.15
in para-11. While appreciating evidence of all these witnesses, the
learned Judge has given cogent reasons for not believing the
evidences of all these witnesses. The learned Judge has rightly
noted that after having stated that the witnesses had seen the
accused putting house on fire, have admitted that from the hand-pump
or from the place they are stating that they have seen the incident,
only top of the house was visible. That being so, they could not
have witnessed the person putting the house on fire. The witnesses
have also admitted that distance at which they are at the time of
incident is about 1 km.
5. Taking into
consideration the totality of the facts of the case and the reasoning
given by the learned Judge, this Court is of the opinion that that
the learned Judge has rightly recorded acquittal for the offences
alleged against the accused. Hence, this application is rejected.
(Ravi
R.Tripathi, J.)
(P.P.Bhatt,
J.)
*Shitole
Top