SOMABHAI ABHESANGH VASAVA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant was the accused before Sessions Court, Bharuch, in Sessions Case No. 59 of 2005, and faced charge for the offence of murder of his wife Gangaben allegedly committed by him on 14.02.2005 in the outskirts of village Tavra by strangulating her with her blouse. The trial court found that the prosecution could prove the case against the accused, and therefore, recorded conviction for the offence of murder, and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life, and to pay fine of Rupees Five Thousand, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for six months, and hence this appeal.

(2.) AS per the prosecution case, the appellant and his wife Gangaben were staying at village Divi, Karjan Taluka, Vadodara District. About two days prior to 14.02.2005, Jeevanbhai Chunilal Vasava, brother of deceased Gangaben, went to the house of the appellant and found that the house was locked. He, therefore, again went to the house of the appellant on the next day, and again it was found locked. However, upon enquiries being made by him, the neighbours told him that they may have gone out of station. He made enquiries in the surrounding villages also. While making enquiries, he went to village Haldar, where he met Rameshbhai Mansang, and inquired of him about the appellant, and he was told that the appellant had gone to attend nature's call. He, therefore, waited for the appellant, and when the appellant arrived, he inquired about Gangaben, in response to which the appellant got scared, and told that Gangaben is sitting in a field in the outskirts of village Tavra, where sugarcane has been cultivated. Jeevanbhai, therefore, along with his uncle Shanubhai, Hasmukh, etc., went in a rickshaw towards the outskirts of village Tavra. The appellant was also with them. He pointed out a field, where there was standing crop of sugarcane. He said that Gangaben was sitting there. On search being made, Gangaben was found in a dead condition. Witness Jeevanbhai, therefore, asked the appellant about the same, in response to which, he said that he had illicit relation with his sister-in-law Kailashben, which fact came to be known by Gangaben, and therefore, he had caused her death by strangulating her with blouse. Jeevanbhai noticed that there were ligature marks around the neck of his sister. She was bleeding through mouth. The police recorded First Information Report, which is Exh.9. On the basis of the First Information Report, the police investigated, and filed charge sheet in the court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bharuch, who in turn, committed the case to Sessions, and Sessions Case No.59 of 2005 came to be registered. Charge sheet (Exh. 5) against the accused was filed for charge of murder, to which he pleaded not guilty, and came to be tried. The trial court after examining the evidence, recorded conviction and sentenced him for imprisonment for life, as stated hereinabove.

(3.) MR . Darji also submitted that the appellant allegedly was staying with his wife and a child. The Panchnama of place of incident would indicate presence of belongings of a child, but nowhere there is any mention about presence of the child, and what happened to the child after the incident. According to Mr. Darji, therefore, there are gaps in the circumstances shown by the prosecution against the accused, which has been overlooked by the trial court, and therefore, the conviction recorded by the trial court may be set aside by allowing the appeal.