KUPABHAI JUMABHAI DAMOR Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present appeal is filed by the appellants ? (original accused Nos.1 to 4), under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, challenging the Judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 29.08.2001 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Sabar Kantha at Himatnagar, in Sessions Case No. 62 of 1997, whereby the learned Judge has held all the accused - appellants guilty of the offences under Sections 394, 395 and 114 of I.P. Code and awarded sentence to all of them to suffer R.I. For 3 (three) years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- each and in default of fine, to under go RI for 6 months.

(2.) THE facts of the prosecution case are that on 23.11.1995, the work of centering of terrace was going on the Ashram premises at village Sanali. At about 3.00 P.M., Maganbhai (deceased), son of the complainant had gone at the place of Jasubhai Panchal at Laxmipura village for hiring mixture machine, on his scooter, and at village Randhiwad for hiring the labourers. It is the case of prosecution that Maganbhai did not return at home and, therefore, the complainant, his son and other workers, started search. It is the case of prosecution that at Randhiwad village, one Samalbhai Harijan told the complainant that at 8.00 P.M., Maganbhai had left for going to Mandali village on his scooter and, therefore, the complainant returned to his village Mndali where the complainant came to know that the deceased Maganbhai had not returned to his house. It is the case of the prosecution that on 24.11.1995 at 6.00 A.M., one Bhemabhai Ramabhai Prajapati of village Mandali informed the complainant that his son has met with an accident on the road near village Bavad Kodia. THEreafter, the complainant, Revabhai Lilabhei Prajapati and others had gone to village Kherol and met the Jamadar and they reached at the place where the accident had occurred. It is the case of the prosecution that at the place of accident, the complainant saw line of blood from the road towards the hill and at the side of hill the complainant saw the Pensal (Madaliya). THE complainant came to know from Jamadar that the son of the complainant had died and shifted to Khedbrahmma Cottage Hospital. THE complainant reached the Cottage Hospital and saw the dead body of his son Magan in the Post Mortem Room. On the body of deceased, the complainant found injury on the head. THEreafter, the complainant filed complaint, which was registered as CR No. I-144/95. THEreafter, necessary investigation was carried out and with the help of Dog Squad, Muddamal was recovered. THEreafter, on different dates, the accused were arrested. Initially, the charge-sheet was submitted against accused Nos.1 to 3 and other co-accused Mithabhai Haribhai Gamar, Neta Bhikha Gamar and Badabhai Gopibhai Damor were shown as absconder. Subsequently, the supplementary charge-sheet was submitted against accused No.4 Badabhai Gopibhai Damor. THEreafter, both the cases were committed on 21.4.1997 to the Court of Sessions.

(3.) BEING aggrieved by the aforesaid Judgment and order of conviction rendered by the learned Sessions Judge, Sabar Kantha at Himatnagar, the original accused ? appellants Nos.1 to 4 have preferred present Appeal.