LAWS(GJH)-2012-9-247

NILAY @ NILESH NAVINCHANDRA MEHTA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

Decided On September 13, 2012
Nilay @ Nilesh Navinchandra Mehta Appellant
V/S
STATE OF GUJARAT Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rafik Ibrahimbhai Notiya (Muslim), appellant of Criminal Appeal No.1742 of 2006 and Nilay @ Nilesh Navinchandra Mehta, appellant of Criminal Appeal No.1461 of 2006, came to be tried by Sessions Court, Surendranagar in Sessions Case No.5 of 2006, for offences punishable under Sections 302, 397, 201 r/w Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act. They came to be convicted and sentenced as under: <FRM>JUDGEMENT_3705_TLGJ0_2012_1.html</FRM>

(2.) The prosecution case, in brief, is that two appellants along with one Raju Bhaiya, committed robbery on Rajkot-Limbdi Highway on 06/04/2005, between 9.00 p.m. and 11.00 p.m. In the robbery, they robbed one Mansurbhai Khumanbhai Kagda, driver of the truck No.GJ-1-AU-1800, a mobile phone of NOKIA Company, his wristwatch and Rs.2,500/- in cash, and in that transaction, they committed murder of Mansurbhai Khumanbhai Kagda by inflicting knife blows on chest and throat. In this context, FIR was lodged by Virdasbhai Naranbhai, owner of the truck with Chotila Police Station and offence came to be registered. The Investigating Agency having found sufficient evidence against the present appellants and absconding accused Raju Bhaiya, filed charge-sheet against the appellants in the Court of learned JMFC, Chotila, who in turn, committed the case to the Sessions Court, Surendranagar and Sessions Case No.5 of 2006 came to be registered.

(3.) Rafik Ibrahimbhai Notiya (Muslim) appellant of Criminal Appeal No.1742 of 2006 was the accused No.1 and Nilay @ Nilesh Navinchandra Mehta, appellant of Criminal Appeal No.1461 of 2006 was the accused No.2 before the trial Court. Since these two appeals arise out of the same judgment and order, they are heard together and are disposed of by this common judgment and for sake of convenience, the appellants are referred to by their original status as accused Nos.1 and 2 respectively.