LAWS(GJH)-2010-4-204

PUNA KORSI MAHESHWARI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

Decided On April 27, 2010
PUNA KORSI MAHESHWARI Appellant
V/S
STATE OF GUJARAT Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant, along with three others, came to be tried by the Sessions Court, Kutch at Bhuj, in Sessions Case No. 2/2000, for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 307, 325 and 504, all read with Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code ["IPC" for short] and he came to be convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 302 & 323 IPC, but acquitted of the other charges; whereas rest of the accused persons, namely, Devji Korshi Maheshwari, Dahyalal Puna Maheshwari and Aliyo @ Govind Bhimji Daniya, original accused Nos.2, 3 & 4 respectively came to be acquitted of all the charges levelled against them. For the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC, the appellant was sentenced to suffer life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/-, in default to undergo R.I for a further period of six months, and for the offence punishable under Section 323 IPC, he was sentenced to undergo S.I for six months. He was given the benefit of set off.

(2.) The case of the prosecution against the appellant was that first informant, Shakinabai, was a widow and was to receive relief under a Government Scheme. The appellant allegedly made illicit demand from her for releasing such relief. However, the first informant denied the demand and talked her brother about the same. The first informant's brother, therefore, rebuked the appellant for such demand. Aggrieved by this, on 12.9.1999 at about 18.30 hours, in the outskirts of village Beraja, the appellant along with the acquitted accused, allegedly assaulted Tamachi Juma Koli, brother of the first informant and caused his death by inflicting blows with ring-sticks and/or dhokas. He also allegedly used abusive language. The hurt that was caused to Shakinabai was allegedly grievous and charge was also framed for the offence punishable under Section 307 IPC.

(3.) We have heard learned advocate Ms.Kapadia for the appellant. According to her, the trial Court has committed an error in appreciating the evidence. She submitted that the evidence is inconsistent, so far as it relates to the nature of weapons used and the injuries found on the person of the deceased. She submitted that in spite of that, the trial Court convicted the appellant; whereas on the same set of evidence, acquitted rest of the accused and, therefore, the appeal may be allowed.