AMITKUMARSINH RAJENDRAPRASAD SINH Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment and order passed by learned Sessions Judge, Surat in Sessions Case No.235 of 2005, dated 23rd November, 2006, whereby the appellant has been convicted for offence punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code and is sentenced to undergo life imprisonment. The learned Sessions Judge has further imposed fine of Rs.15,000/- and in default of payment of fine, has ordered imprisonment for 2 years and 6 months. The appellant was charged for offences under Sections 376 and 188 of IPC, however, for the said offenses, the learned Sessions Judge has acquitted the appellant. It is against this judgment and order, the appellant is before this Court.

(2.) The case of the prosecution in brief is to the effect that the appellant, original accused and the uncle of the appellant had taken on rent Nirmala Medical Stores from complainant Akhileshkumar Devsharan Shah, with Rs.14,000/- rent per month, and had paid Rs.40,000/- as deposit to the complainant. Thereafter, the appellant, original accused and the uncle of the appellant had taken another shop on rental basis near the above Nirmala Medical Store and had started furniture work in the said shop which the complainant did not like and demanded the possession of his shop back from uncle of the appellant. Initially they refused to hand over the possession of the said shop however after the mediation of one Sunilbhai Shah, compromise took place and the appellant, original accused and the uncle of the appellant agreed and handed over the possession of the property in question to the complainant. This episode annoyed the the appellant and keeping the same in mind, on 10.7.2005, at about 8.00 p.m. when the wife of the complainant Smt.Chandnidevi, who was pregnant by about seven moths and was alone at home, the appellant entered the house of complainant and raped her and attacked her with knife and inflicted blows on the throat of Chandnidevi and killed her. The appellant thus committed offences punishable under Sections 376 and 302 of the I.P.C. The prosecution had also charged that in-spite of Police Commissioner's prohibitory orders for use of dangerous weapons, the appellant committed offence using dangerous weapon and thus the appellant had committed offence punishable under Section 188 of the I.P.C. FIR in this regard being C.R. No.I-122/2005 was lodged in Pandesara Police Station, Surat City, initially against unknown person.The case was investigated by the police, the accused was arrested and the charge-sheet was filed before the competent Court. The case being triable by the Court of Sessions, the same was committed to the Sessions Court and the charge was framed against the present appellant vide Exh.6.

(3.) The prosecution, to prove the case against the appellant, had examined 14 witnesses, the details of which are recorded by the learned Sessions Judge in paragraph No.4 of the judgment. The prosecution had relied on 14 documentary evidences to prove the charge against the appellant, the details of which are mentioned in paragraph No.5 of the judgment. Thereafter learned Sessions Judge heard the parties, recorded the further statement of the appellant under Sec. 313 of the Cr.P.C., and came to the conclusion that the charge against the accused, the present appellant is proved to the extent of committing offense under Sec.302 of I.P.C., and therefore convicted the accused for the same. Learned Sessions Judge however found that the other part of the charge i.e. the appellant having committed offences punishable under Sec.376 and 188 of I.P.C. is not proved beyond reasonable doubt and therefore acquitted the accused to that extent. State has not challenged this part of the judgement. It is the original accused, who is before this court, challenging that part of the judgement by which he is convicted under Sec.302 of I.P.C.