CHANDRAKANT FATUMAL LUHANA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant Chandrakant Fatumal Luhana came to be tried by the Sessions Court, Kheda at Anand along with his mother Sitaben Fatumal Luhana for the offences punishable under Section 498-A read with Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code in Sessions Case No. 170 of 2003. The appellant came to be convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo Imprisonment for Life with fine of Rs. 20,000/-, in default, to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for three years. However, the Trial Court acquitted him as well as co-accused Sitaben of the charges for offences punishable under Section 498-A read with Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code. The appellant has, therefore, preferred this appeal against conviction. Against acquittal of co-accused as well as the present accused for offences punishable under Section 498-A read with Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code, there is no appeal preferred by the State.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that the appellant was married to Lilaben, daughter of Sumitraben Thavardas on 25th May, 1995. From the wedlock, deceased Lilaben had delivered a daughter Bharti, aged about 4 at the time of the incident. They were staying at Guru Nanak Society around 23rd March, 2003. As per the prosecution case, the incident occurred at about 19 : 30 hours in the house occupied by the appellant and his family in Guru Nanak Society. It was charged that the appellant inflicted multiple blows on the head of his wife - deceased Lilaben with the help of wooden 'Paatli" resulting into her death.

(3.) Learned advocate Mr. Barot appearing for the appellant submitted that the important link in the form of evidence to show presence of the appellant at the place of incident when the incident occurred is missing. The prosecution has not been able to prove beyond reasonable doubt the factum of the presence of the appellant at the place of the incident. He also submitted that the evidence of the prosecution is inconsistent and the Trial Court has recorded conviction on hypothesis which does not prove involvement of the appellant and appellant alone in the incident. Mr. Barot submitted that nobody has seen the occurrence. Witness Nandubhai notices the incident when he finds the victim lying at the bottom of the staircase. He then takes her to her house where the accused appellant was not present. Much reliance is placed on the evidence of daughter Bharti who says that she had gone to the temple along with accused No. 2 her grandmother and when she came back, she saw her mother lying in an injured condition. She says that she saw her father viewing cricket match. The Trial Court has overlooked the aspect that this evidence is inconsistent with the evidence of Nandu. Mr. Barot, therefore, submitted that no reliance could have been placed on this evidence.