MAHENDRASINGH MEVALAL THAKUR Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Appellant along with three other co -accused came to be tried by the Ld. Sessions Judge, Valsad at Navsari for the offences punishable under Sections 365, 394, 328 read with Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code [IPC] in Sessions Case No. 58/1998. By impugned judgment and order dated 24/4/2001, at the end of the trial, the original accused No. 2 - Girdhari Rajnarayan Tiwari and original accused No. 4 - Abhay alias Muna Rajbali Dube came to be acquitted of all the charges levelled against them; whereas the present Appellant, who was accused No. 1 in aforesaid Sessions Case and co -accused No. 3 - Dineshsing alias Babalusing Shivbali Thakur though came to be acquitted of the charge of the offence punishable under Section 365 of the IPC, they were convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 394 and 328 of the IPC. The Appellant was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment [RI] for 3 years and fine of Rs. 5,000/ - and in default of payment of fine, simple imprisonment [SI] for 6 months for the offence punishable under Section 394 of the IPC and RI for 3 years and fine of Rs. 5,000/ - and in default of payment of fine, SI for 6 months for the offence punishable under Section 328 of the IPC. Both the substantive sentences of imprisonment were ordered to run concurrently. Co -accused No. 3 - Dineshsing was also sentenced to undergo identical sentence, but it is reported that he has not challenged his conviction and sentence by preferring any appeal. However, feeling aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the conviction and sentence recorded by the trial Court, the Appellant, who was original accused No. 1, preferred this appeal under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ['Cr. P.C.' for short].

(2.) THE prosecution case, in nutshell, is that the incident occurred at about 16.00 hours on 27/6/1997 in City of Valsad. It is alleged that at the time and place of the incident, first informant Maheshbhai Parbhubhai Halpati, who was rickshaw driver, had parked his rickshaw and two accused, namely Appellant and original accused No. 3 Dineshsing came near the rickshaw and posed themselves as passengers and hired the rickshaw bearing registration No. GJ -15 v. 6521. It is the prosecution case that the Appellant and the co -accused gave pineapple juice to the first informant rickshaw driver Maheshbhai and he actually consumed the juice and it is alleged that he became unconscious because of some sedative drugs administered in the juice. When he regained consciousness, he found that his rickshaw was robbed by the Appellant and co -accused No. 3. He reported the incident to Vapi Town Police Station and his FIR was registered. Pursuant to his FIR, investigation was commenced and during the course of investigation, statements of material witnesses were recorded. Required panchnamas were drawn in presence of panchas. Muddamal rickshaw came to be seized. After the police concluded the investigation, charge sheet came to be filed in the Court of Ld. Judicial Magistrate First Class, Valsad. Since the offence is exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, Ld. Magistrate committed the case to the Court of Sessions, Valsad at Navsari, which was registered as Sessions Case No. 58 of 1998.

(3.) LD . Sessions Judge framed charge against the Appellant as well as 3 co -accused persons at exh. 6 regarding the offences alleged against them, to which including the Appellant, all the accused did not plead guilty and claimed to be tried. Thereupon, the prosecution examined 11 witnesses and relied upon 9 documents detailed in paras. 13 and 14 of the impugned judgment. After the prosecution concluded its oral evidence, Ld. Sessions Judge recorded further statement of the Appellant under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure The Appellant in his further statement denied generally all the incriminating circumstances put to him by the trial Court and stated that he was innocent and he was falsely implicated in this case.