VITTHALBHAI BABULAL GAJJAR Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 5.5.2006 passed by the Sessions Court, Mehsana, in Sessions Case No. 18/2006, whereby, the sole accused, the appellant, is convicted for the offence under Section 302 of IPC and Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act, and is sentenced as under. For the offence under Section 302 of IPC R/I for life and fine of Rs. 500/-, in default, to undergo S/I for one month. For the offence under section 135 of the Bombay Police Act, S/I for one month and fine of Rs. 100/-, in default, to undergo S/I for five days. It is further ordered that both the sentences would run concurrently. It is this judgment and order, which is under challenge in this appeal.

(2.) THE case of the prosecution is to the effect that, on 23.11.2005, at about 5.00 O'clock in the afternoon, the mother of the appellant was murdered by the present appellant by giving Axe blow on her throat, at her house. THE house is at Kumbharvas at Visnagar District: Mehsana. THE motive for killing the mother, as attributed by the prosecution, is that the appellant used to nurture the grievance that right from his birth, the appellant was not looked after properly by the mother and that the mother was of loose character.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the appellant has contended that there is false implication of the present appellant. In support of his say, he relied on his written statement Exh.53, which was requested to be treated as part of his further statement recorded under section 313 of Cr.P.C. before the learned Sessions Judge. The contents of the said statement is to the effect that on the date of occurrence, when the appellant went to see his parents and brother at his residence, at Visnagar, neither brother nor father was present at home, and the dead-body of his mother was lying in the house. He states he went to the police station and informed that somebody has killed my mother and the police implicated him only in the said offence. LEARNED advocate for the appellant further submitted that the evidence on record is not sufficient to bring home the charge, and in any case, it creates sufficient doubt about the involvement of the present appellant, and therefore, it is urged that conviction may be interfered with and the appellant be acquitted.