JASHWANTBHAI MERVANBHAI KUKANA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in this Criminal Appeal is to the correctness of the judgment and order dated 8.9.2004, rendered in Sessions Case No. 12 of 2004, by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Navsari, by which the sole Appellant - Jashwantbhai Mervanbhai Kukana ( 'accused' for short), has been convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 364 of the Indian Penal Code ('the IPC' for short) and sentenced to imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default, rigorous imprisonment for four months for the offence under Section 302 IPC and rigorous imprisonment for three years and fine of Rs. 500/- in default, rigorous imprisonment for two months for the offence under Section 364 IPC. It is also ordered that both the substantive sentences shall run concurrently. However, the accused is acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 201 of the IPC.

(2.) The prosecution case as disclosed from the FIR and unfolded during trial is as under:

(3.) Ms. Trusha H. Mehta, learned Advocate appointed by Free Legal Aid committee, to assist the accused, has assailed the judgment and order of conviction and sentence strenuously and has submitted that there is no eye witness to the incident and the entire prosecution case is based on the circumstantial evidence. According to her, the circumstances relied upon by the prosecution are not sufficient to record the order of conviction against the accused. She has further submitted that there was no motive on the part of the accused to kill Pooja. She has further submitted that the accused was in affairs with the mother of Pooja - Paruben, with whom, he has got the illicit relations after the death of her husband. The prosecution has also pitted the circumstances of extra judicial confession made by the accused before Ishwarbhai Radkubhai, Sarpanch, who has turned hostile and not supported the prosecution case. Therefore, according to her, the circumstantial evidence, on which the prosecution has placed reliance, did not complete the chain of the circumstances to connect the accused with the crime. She, therefore, submitted that the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence is recorded against the evidence on record, the same deserves to be quashed and set aside by allowing this Appeal and the accused may be acquitted of the offences with which he was charged. She, therefore, urged to allow the Appeal.