MALABHAI BHARATBHAI BHURIYA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two appeals arise out of a judgement and order passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Dahod, in Sessions Case No. 149 of 2005, where these two appellants were the accused persons. They were charged to have committed murder of Ramilaben, wife of Chhatrasinh Raisinh Bhura, on 09.10.2005 around 11.00 - 1200 noon for the purpose of robbing silver ornaments that the deceased was wearing. They are also charged to have committed an offence punishable under Section 135 Bombay Police Act, 1951 (for short 'the Act') by remaining in possession of weapon, despite a memorandum prohibiting the same.

(2.) THE case of the prosecution is that on 09.10.2005 at about 11.00 a.m., Ramilaben, wife of Chhatrasinh Raisinh Bhura, had gone to the bank of river Khari near village Anop for washing clothes. She was wearing silver anklets weighing about 100 gms. The two accused-appellants, with a view to rob of her all these ornaments, committed her murder, and thereby, they committed offence punishable under Section 394 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code. They also committed breach of a notification prohibiting use of weapon, and thereby committed offence punishable under Section 135 of the Act.

(3.) BARRING Sajanben, there is no other witness of relevance. Of course, the prosecution has tried to prove the case against the accused by indicating that accused no.1 had concealed the ornaments, namely, the anklet and a sickle in the house of original accused no.2, which has been discovered by accused no.1.