NARENDRA RAMSING NAYAK Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant accused has preferred this appeal under section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and has challenged the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 23.9.2005 passed by the learned 3rd Addl. Sessions Judge, Vadodara in Sessions Case No. 47 of 2005 convicting him for the offence u/s 302 of the IPC and under section 135 of the Bombay Police Act and sentencing him to undergo life imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs.500/- in default to undergo RI for three months for the offence punishable under section 302 of the IPC, but no separate sentence was inflicted for the offence under section 135 of the Bombay Police Act.

(2.) According to the prosecution case, on the night of 26.11.2004, accused and his wife Ambaben went to the terrace of the house to sleep. At about 2:30 to 3:00 a.m., accused came down from the terrace and informed witness Varshaben that he has killed Ambaben. Therefore, witness Varshaben and others went to the terrace and found Ambaben lying in pool of blood. Therefore, Ambaben was taken to the Government Health Centre, where the doctor declared her dead. Therefore, FIR was lodged by Ganpatsinh Nayak before Chhani Police Station, Vadodara City.

(3.) On the basis of the FIR, offence was registered and investigation was started. During the course of investigation, the dead body was sent for postmortem, panchnama of scene of offence and recovery of weapons were drawn, statements of witnesses were recorded and the accused was arrested. On completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed against the accused for the offence of murder of Ambaben in the court of learned JMFC, Vadodara. As the offence was triable by the court of Sessions, the case was committed to the Sessions Court and it was registered as Sessions Case No.47 of 2005. Learned 3rd Addl. Sessions Judge, Vadodara framed charge Exh-5 for the aforesaid offence against the accused. The charge was read over and explained to him. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed to be tried. Therefore, the prosecution adduced evidence. On completion of recording of evidence, further statement of the accused under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was recorded. The accused in his further statement stated that at the time of incident, he was sleeping and his wife and his brother were in inebriated condition and on account of that, she might have fell down on the pestle and she might have sustained injuries. After hearing learned advocate for the accused and learned APP for the State, learned trial Judge by his judgment dated 23.9.2005 convicted the accused and sentenced him as mentioned herein above. Being aggrieved by the said decision, the accused has preferred this appeal.