MAHENDRASINH ALIAS MANUDARA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant-accused along with two other accused were tried for the offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 302 read with section 34 and Section 323 read with Section 34 of IPC before the court of Additional Sessions Judge, Vadodara in Sessions Case No.167/91. The appellant-accused No.1 was also tried for the offences punishable under Section 302 of IPC Section 25-C of the Arms Act for committing murder of Dineshbhai Amin, President of Sneaked Taluka Panchayat in the broad day light on 3.5.1991 at 10.45 am. while travelling in the jeep. Number of witnesses were examined by the prosecution to prove the case against all the accused. However, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Vadodara by his impugned judgment and order dated 22.12.1992 acquitted the accused Nos. 2 and 3 by giving benefit of doubt, but convicted the appellant-accused No.1 present appellant, for committing murder of Dineshbhai Amin by firing gun shot, under Section 302 of IPC and sentenced him to suffer life imprisonment. He has also convicted the appellant-accused No.1 for the offence under Section 323 of IPC and sentenced him to suffer 3 months R.I. and to pay fine of Rs.500/= in default to further undergo 3 months R.I. He has also convicted the appellant-accused for the offence under Section 27 of the Arms Act and sentenced him to suffer 3 years R.I. and to pay fine of Rs.500/= in default to further undergo 6 months R.I. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. This order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned judge is challenged in this appeal by the present appellant-accused.

(2.) Initially, this appeal was filed by the appellant-accused through his counsel Shri Vivek Barot. Thereafter, on the untimely death of Shri Vivek Barot, Mrs.Krishna Barot filed her appearance on behalf of the appellant-accused in this appeal. There is yet another Criminal Appeal No.112/96 filed by the present appellant-accused challenging his order of conviction and sentence passed in other case which was tagged along with this appeal and placed at Sr.No.23 in the running final hearing board dated 26.11.2001. Last week when this matter was about to reach, we sent for the learned counsel for the appellant-accused, but instead of Mrs.Krishna Barot, senior counsel Shri Magan Barot appeared before us and stated that out of two appeals the appellant has engaged Shri Adil Mehta in Criminal Appeal No.112 of 1996. We inquired from Mr.Mehta as to whether he will be appearing in this matter or not, to which he said no. Therefore, Criminal Appeal No.112/96 was ordered to be separated from this matter and placed before the concerned court taking up appeals against the order of conviction after the year 1994 as per the present roster. Mr.Barot then submitted that the appellant-accused was advised to engage senior advocate in this matter but thereafter they have not received any instruction, therefore, he may not be able to remain present and argue this case on behalf of Mrs.Barot for the appellant-accused.

(3.) Today, we have sufficiently waited for Mr.Barot and Mrs.Krishna Barot for pretty long time, but nobody put appearance, therefore, in their absence, we heard Shri K.P.Raval, learned APP appearing for the State and decided this appeal on merits.