LAWS(GJH)-2010-10-118

RAMANBHAI KHATRIBHAI VASAVA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

Decided On October 05, 2010
RAMANBHAI KHATRIBHAI VASAVA Appellant
V/S
STATE OF GUJARAT Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant original accused has filed this Appeal, through jail, against the Judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 15.11.2006 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, District Narmada at Rajpipla, in Sessions Case No. 26 of 2006, whereby the learned Sessions Judge has held the appellant accused guilty for the offence punishable under Section 307 of I.P. Code and sentenced him to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for 7 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- i/d to further undergo SI for one year. The learned Sessions Judge also held the appellant accused guilty for the offence under Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act and sentenced him to suffer RI for three months and to pay a fine of Rs.100/- i/d to further SI for 15 days. The learned Judge ordered that both the sentences to run concurrently.

(2.) The brief facts of the case of prosecution are that on 20.5.2002 at 22.00 hours the appellant (original accused) had attacked the complainant, who is residing at village Mota Hendva, Taluka Nandod, with an intention to cause his death and inflicted the blows on the body of the complainant by using dangerous weapon like Axe. Therefore, the complaint was lodged against the appellant accused with Rajpipla Police Station vide CR No. I 88 of 2002.

(3.) Necessary investigation was carried out by the Police. Offence under Sections 307 of I.P. Code read with Section 135 of the B.P. Act was registered against the accused. The statements of the complainant and other witnesses were recorded. Thereafter, after completion of investigation, the charge-sheet against the accused came to be submitted before the Court. As the offences were triable by the Court of Sessions, the learned Magistrate committed the case to the Court of Sessions. The learned Sessions Judge framed the charge against the accused. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed to be tried. The accused was also provided the Advocate from the Legal aid.