LAWS(GJH)-2012-9-120

ASHOKBHAI LEMBABHAI DAMOR Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

Decided On September 21, 2012
ASHOKBHAI LEMBABHAI DAMOR Appellant
V/S
STATE OF GUJARAT Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal arises out of the judgment and order rendered by Sessions Court, Banaskantha, in Sessions Case No. 87 of 2005 on January, 07 2006, whereby the appellant came to be convicted under Section 235(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 for an offence punishable under section 302 of IPC and sentenced to imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment, to undergo further for a period of 3 months. He also came to be convicted for an offence punishable under section 135 of the Bombay Police Act, but no separate sentence was awarded. However, gave benefit of set off.

(2.) The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 5.3.2005 at about 12 noon, the appellant and Panriben were going to the field of Nathubhai and three other persons were chasing them. Nathubhai inquired of them as to whether they would like to work in the field on crop share basis or not, to which they denied. Therefore, Nathubhai told him to surrender to police and in that transaction, there was a fight in which Nathubhai was injured and succumbed to the injuries. FIR was given by Narsangbhai Bhemjibhai Patel, on basis of which, offence was registered with Chhapi Police Station and after investigation, charge-sheet was filed in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Banaskantha at Palanpur and committed to the Court of Sessions and Sessions Case No. 87 of 2005 came to be registered. Charge was framed against the accused at exh. 4 for offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC and Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act, to which he pleaded not guilty and came to be tried. At the end of the trial, the Trial Court found that the prosecution was successful in proving charges against the accused and, therefore, convicted him by judgment and order impugned and awarded sentence as stated hereinabove. Hence, this appeal by the convict.

(3.) Heard learned advocate Mr. Chhara for the appellant and learned APP, Mr. Soni, for the respondent-State.