1. The petitioner is the complainant. He has challenged judgement of acquittal dated 30.9.2009 rendered by learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Anand in Sessions Case No.30/2009. Respondents No. 1 to 6 are the original accused.
2. Case of the prosecution was that aged mother of the complainant residing alone, was found dead in mysterious circumstances in the house. Accused who had previously quarrelled with the family of the complainant were therefore, prime suspects. Investigation was carried out and charge-sheet was filed against them. On the allegation that they had committed murder of the mother of the complainant, the Sessions case proceeded. After recording evidence, learned Additional Sessions Judge by impugned judgement acquitted all the accused finding no evidence of having committed the offences.
3. Upon perusal of the judgement under consideration, though at first sight, it appears to be a rather short discussion of evidence on record, while going through record and proceedings, I found that the evidence itself was very limited. I had with assistance of learned advocates appearing for parties gone through the entire evidence and found that learned Judge committed no error which can be rectified in the revision application.
4. Under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, High Court has powers to entertain the revision application against judgement and order passed by the Courts below. In particular, Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure empowers the High Court to call for record of any case before any inferior Court and judge the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order. Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in clear terms provides that High Court is not authorised to convert the findings of acquittal into one of conviction.
5. Question is does order of Learned Additional Sessions Judge suffer from such an error as to exercise revision powers and remand the proceedings for fresh consideration.
6. Prosecution examined the complainant as PW-1, her brother i.e son of deceased as PW-2, Investigating officer as PW-3 to drive home the charges. In addition to said witnesses and formal witnesses, prosecution also examined Dr. Sanjay Gupta PW-5 to prove the postmortem report and bring on record the opinion of the doctor regarding cause of death.
7. Subhadraben Shanabhai Prajapati, PW-1(exh.22) stated that she was residing with her mother previously. However, at the time of incident she was residing with her brother. Accused had quarrelled with her and other family members on 9.10.2008 and also threatened with dire consequences. Since the mother was residing alone, she had instructed her brother to visit her of and on. On 20.10.2008, her brother Kamlesh had gone to visit the mother. Upon return, he stated that the mother had informed him that accused had threatened her. On 24.10.2008, her brother Kamlesh had called up at neighbour's phone and told her that mother is found dead in the house. She should therefore, immediately rush there. When she reached the spot, she suspected foul play. She thought that on neck, the mother was given a blow with sharp edged weapon.
8. Kamleshbhai Shanabhai Prajapati, PW.2(ex.24) stated that he used to visit his mother frequently at Davol. Accused had previously quarreled with him and the family members, for which his sister had lodged complaint. On 24.10.2008, when he went to Davol, to meet his mother, he found her dead in the house. Thereupon he called his sister.
9. Mohanbhai Jadabhai Dabhi, PW-3(exh.29) is the officer who carried out investigation. He only stated the steps which he took pursuant to the complaint lodged.
10. Dr. Sanjay Kedarlal Gupta,PW-5(exh.57) though was not the person who carried out postmortem, in his deposition he stated that same was done by Dr. Jaydeep Gadhvi and Dr. Hitesh Vaishnav who were working with him and he therefore, could identify their signatures. Dr. Jaydeep Gadhvi has gone to Australia and Dr. Hitesh Vaishnav has resigned from the hospital and settled in America. He was therefore, examined in connection with said case on hand. He gave details of the injuries and other findings of the postmortem report. With respect to cause of death, he stated that same could have been on account of pressure on the neck which was in consonance with the head injury. He stated that the injuries on the neck and chest could have been caused by a weapon having dimension of 22cmx18cm. Head injury could have been caused either by a hard blunt substance or also by falling down.
11. In the certificate of cause of death, exh.59, following opinion was recorded :
"Died due to compression over front of neck and upper part of front of chest associated with head injury(counter coup type). Neck and chest compression is possible by an object of size about 22cm(length) x 18cm(breadth)[contact surface] Head injury is possible by hard and blunt object or surface."
12. From above evidence, it can be clearly seen that there was no iota of material to connect the accused with the alleged offence. Prosecution could not even establish that death of the mother of the complainant was homicidal. The possibility of aged lady falling down in house and receiving injury on the back of the head was not ruled out by the doctor. This is not to mean that this was the only possibility. This is only to suggest that same was a clear plausible cause of death. In addition to above, I find that there were no eyewitnesses who could have thrown any light on the incident. In absence of eyewitness accounts, there were no other circumstances or circumstantial evidence which could inevitably point to the guilt of the accused. Simply because between accused on one hand and family of deceased on other, there were past quarrels or that accused had allegedly threatened the complainant and her other family members by itself, cannot be a ground to jump to the conclusion that accused had committed murder of the mother of the complainant.
13. In absence of any evidence at all, I am of the opinion that learned Additional Sessions Judge committed no error in acquitting the accused. There is no merits in the revision application. Same is therefore, dismissed. Rule is discharged.R&P; be returned to the concerned Court.