MANSINGBHAI PUNJABHAI GANAVA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellants-convicts, by way of this Appeal have challenged the judgment and order dated 30.11.2005, passed by the learned Presiding Officer and Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.1, Dahod, in Sessions Case No. 82 of 2005, by which appellant No.1 is ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment of life with fine of Rs.25,000/-, in default, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment of six months for the offence under Section- 302 of the IPC; rigorous imprisonment of 7 months with fine of Rs. 500/-, in default, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment of one month for the offence under Section-323 of the IPC and to undergo rigorous imprisonment of one month with fine of Rs.100/-, in default, to undergo RI for one month for the offence under Section- 504 of the IPC and appellant No.2 is ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment of life with fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment of six months for the offence under Section-302 of the IPC; rigorous imprisonment of 3 months with fine of Rs.250/-, in default, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment of one month for the offence under Section-323 of the IPC and to undergo rigorous imprisonment of one month with fine of Rs.100/-, in default, to undergo RI for 15 days for the offence under Section-504 of the IPC. All the aforesaid sentences are ordered to run concurrently and both the accused are acquitted of the offence under Section-135 of the Bombay Police Act.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the prosecution case are as under:

(3.) LEARNED Advocate Ms. Sadhana Sagar, for the appellants, has assailed the judgment on several grounds, but the main ground advanced by her is with regard to truthfullness of the witnesses, ho posed themselves as eye witnesses to the incident. In support of her submissions, she has stated that the entire case of the witnesses at the initial stage was of pelting stone by appellant No.1 but subsequently the witnesses had deposed before the court by improving themselves, so that the medical evidence which has come on record would suit the say of those witnesses. She has further submitted that the eye witnesses, who are the parents and younger brother, aged 13 years, of the deceased � Bharat, if not believed, then, the entire case of the prosecution about the cause of death of the deceased Bharatbhai becomes unacceptable and therefore the reasons assigned by the Trial Court in accepting the depositions of these witnesses become erroneous and contrary to the evidence on record and therefor the conviction and sentences of the accused persons are required to be set aside. She has further submitted that the conduct of the investigating agency creates doubt if the inquest panchnama and the injuries sustained by the deceased, which has come on record through postmortem note, are compared.