DINESHBHAI PREMJIBHAI DHANDHALYA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) An incident occurred at village Vavdi of Ghogha taluka of Bhavnagar district on 12.10.2003 at about 16-15 hours in the field of Dineshbhai Premjibhai. As per the prosecution case, Dineshbhai Premjibhai was married to Bharti and, on that day, Bharti's brother Batuk Narbheram went in company of Chandubhai Bhanubhai Bhatt and Bhaishanker to invite his sister to the parental house. Dinesh Premjibhai and Himmatbhai Premjibhai got annoyed and refused to permit Bharti to go to her parental house. Batuk, therefore, did not press much for taking Bharti to the parental house and left the house. Batuk was walking in company of Premjibhai whereas Bhaishanker and Chandubhai were walking in company of each other ahead of them. They had hardly walked a distance of about 12 steps that Dinesh Premji and his brother Himmat Premji came from behind. They were both armed with deadly weapons like axe and dharia, respectively, and committed assault on Batuk. Batuk suffered multiple injuries and was taken first to Sir T Hospital and then to Dr Dijesh Shah where he expired. An FIR was registered by Chandubhai Bhanubhai Bhatt PW-1 with Ghogha Police station, on the basis of which the offence was registered and investigated. Upon collecting the evidence, charge-sheet was filed in the Court of JMFC, Ghogha, who in turn, committed the case to the Court of Sessions, Bhavnagar and Sessions Case No.18 of 2004 came to be registered.

(2.) The Sessions Court framed charges at Exh.7 against Dineshbhai Premjibhai and Himmatbhai Premjibhai for the offence punishable under Sections 302 and 34 of IPC and Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act. The accused persons pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed to be tried. 2.1 The trial Court after considering the evidence came to the conclusion that the prosecution was successful in proving the charges against accused No.1- Dineshbhai Premjibhai for the offence of murder and recorded his conviction and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default, to undergo further imprisonment for a period of six months. The trial Court also concluded that the charges against accused No.2 Himmatbhai Premjibhai were not properly proved and recorded his acquittal.

(3.) Against conviction, accused No.1 has preferred Criminal Appeal No.2165 of 2004, and against acquittal of accused No.2, original complainant first informant has lodged Criminal Revision Application No.882 of 2004. The State has not preferred any appeal against the acquittal.