IN THE COURT OF SESSIONS JUDGE/HIGH COURT
ABC S/o , Description of the convict
… APPELLANT
Vs.
(1) Accused
(2) State
… RESPONDENTS
APPEAL
UNDER S. 417(2-A), Cr.P.C. AGAINST ORDER ACQUITTAL DATED PASSED BY
Respectfully Sheweth:
1) That the respondent No. 1 was charged in the commission of
offence u/s 302, P.P.C., he was nominated in the F.I.R., which was lodged by
the complainant, the mother of the deceased lady. The accused absconded for a
pretty long time, and was arrested after more than a year of the date of the
offence. He was accused of murder his own wife by throwing kerosene oil and
setting her on fire resulting causing brutal injuries of burn which resulted
her death.
2) That the postmortem report which was obtained promptly shows
the cause of death by burn injuries.
3) That the prosecution produced 5 witnesses including a mid-servant
who had seen the occurrence coupled with circumstantial evidence of obscondence
there was sufficient material on record for awarding capital sentence as
provided in law.
4) That the trial Court has Passedorder of acquittal of the
accused ignoring the cogent and confidence inspiring evidence on record hence
this appeal inter alia on the
following:
GROUNDS:
i)
That it is admitted on
record that the victim, the deceased lad was the wife of the accused acquitted.
ii)
That it is further admitted
that she died out of burn injuries caused by setting her on fire.
iii)
That the delay in F.I.R. has
been sufficiently explained, there was no one at site of occurrence who could
approach the police for recording F.I.R. the deceased was admitted in the
hospital in a very precarious condition, her parents remained posted at the
hospital to safe the life of her beloved daughter.
iv)
That the deceased remained
in the hospital being seriously injured and died after a fortnight of the
occurrence.
v)
That no doubt the victim was
hospitalized by her husband the accused, and her dead body was brought by him
in house where burial ceremony took place but soon after the F.I.R., was lodged
he absconded and went away to an unknown place. This is a material circumstance
the long absence of the accused remained unexplained throughout.
vi)
That the maid servant of the
house of the accused deposed clearly that there is no one in the kitchen where
the incident took place except the deceased lady and her husband i.e., the
accused.
vii)
That the defence version of
the accused that the deceased caught fire by burst of the stove where kerosene
oil was burning is just after thought.
viii) That the accused did not produce the alleged stove or
reported the matter to the police till the burial of the deceased victim.
ix)
That the trial Court has
committed error in law in reading the evidence in its true perspective there is
direct evidence available on record connecting the accused with the commission
of the offence.
x)
That the impugned judgment
is result of glare non reading and misreading of evidence, the acquittal of
accused is manifestly wrong.
xi)
That the order of acquittal
passed by the trial Court is speculative and artificial, the finding are based
on no evidence, it is result of misinterpretation of evidence the only
conclusion which could be drawn from the evidence is the guilt of the accused
inference of innocence is reverse resulting miscarriage of justice.
xii)
That in the presence of
independent witness available at relevant time sufficient to connect the
accused with the commission of offence charged, the Court has legally erred to
acquit the accused.
xiii) That it is wrong to suggest that the whole prosecution case
was shrouded in mystery and of full doubt. The evidence of record dispels the
inference as drawn by the trial Court.
In view of
the above it is therefore respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be
pleased to accept this appeal, the impugned order may kindly be set aside, and
the accused be dealt with according to law and punished for the offence charged
as provided in law.
APPELLANT
No comments:
Post a Comment