LAWS(GJH)-2010-2-80

RAMANBHAI VALABHAI GAMETI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

Decided On February 10, 2010
RAMANBHAI VALABHAI GAMETI Appellant
V/S
STATE OF GUJARAT Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant came to be charged for the offence of murder of his brother Laxmanbhai allegedly committed on 2nd July 2001 around 6:00 p.m. at Village Takhatpura by inflicting knife blows. The Trial Court convicted him of the same offence and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. The appellant was charged with an offence punishable under Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act, which the Trial Court did not believe and acquitted the appellant. The judgement was rendered on 17.1.2003 by Sessions Court, Modasa in Sessions Case No.125 of 2001.

(2.) The facts of the case in brief are that the appellant and his brother Laxmanbhai were staying near each other at Village Takhatpura. On the day of incident, Laxmanbhai and his father Valabhai had some altercation because of the cattle. At that time, appellant was not at home. When he came home and was about to take bath, he was informed about the incident. He, therefore, got up, put on his clothes, went inside the house and rushed towards Laxmanbhai, who was proceeding from his home towards his field. The appellant attacked Laxmanbhai from behind and inflicted multiple knife blows on various parts of the body varying from head to hand. The injured person ultimately succumbed to the injuries and an FIR came to be lodged by Gitaben, PW-2. On basis of that FIR, offence was registered and investigated, and ultimately, chargesheet was filed in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Modasa, who in turn committed the case to the Court of Sessions and Sessions Case No.125 of 2001 came to be registered. Charge was framed against the accused at exh.3, to which he pleaded not guilty and came to be tried and convicted as stated hereinabove.

(3.) Learned advocate Mr.Majmudar for the appellant submitted that the evidence is not sufficient to record a conviction. The Trial Court has, therefore, committed an error and hence, conviction be set aside.