DINESH DAHYABHAI VALA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Criminal Appeal arises out of a judgment and order rendered by learned Sessions Court, Ahmedabad Rural in Sessions Case No.80 of 2004 on 04/04/2006. The appellants by the said judgment came to be convicted for the offences punishable under Section 302 r/w 34 and under Section 120 (B) r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code ('IPC' for short) and under Section 135 (1) of the Bombay Police Act. The appellants have been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs.1,000.00 in default to undergo SI for one month for the offence punishable under Section 302 r/w 34 of the IPC. For the offence punishable under Section 120 (B) r/w 34 of the IPC, the appellants have been sentenced to undergo six months RI and to pay a fine of Rs.500.00 in default to undergo 15 days SI. For the offence punishable under Section 135 (1) of the Bombay Police Act, the appellants have been sentenced to undergo one year RI and to pay a fine of Rs.500.00, in default, to undergo one month SI. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently and benefit of set of is given to the appellants.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that on 01/10/2003, one Jayesh Shankerbhai was proceeding on his motorcycle alongwith Kiran Madhubhai near Chimanbhai Harjibhai Patel's bungalow at Rajivnagar at about 2:30 a.m. It is the case of the prosecution that they were intercepted by the four accused ­ appellants and attacked by deadly weapons like stick, iron pipe and steel rod, which resulted into several injuries suffered by the deceased, to which he ultimately succumbed. Companion of the deceased ­ Kiran Madhubhai was on the pillion seat of the motorcycle. He was manhandled by the accused persons and that the accused persons attacked the deceased. He, therefore, got scarred and ran away.

(3.) LEARNED Additional Public Prosecutor, Mr.Kodekar, for respondent ­ State has vehemently opposed this appeal. According to him, evidence of a natural and truthful witness would consist certain inconsistencies or contradictions resulting out of memory loss on account of efflux of time. It may also happen that there may be a lapse in making observations and then describing the same. But, if the occular evidence and the medical evidence are not totally inconsistent or contradictory, the medical evidence would lend credence to the occular evidence and make it more trustworthy. He, therefore, contended that the appreciation of evidence by the trial Court is just, legal and proper and this Court may not interfere with the findings recorded by the trial Court and may dismiss the appeal.