MAFATBHAI KACHARABHAI RATHOD Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants, father and son who are convicted by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Gandhinagar, in Sessions Case No.32 of 2005 for the offences under Sections 302, 504 of Indian Penal Code, Section 135 of Bombay Police Act, and under Section 120(B) of Indian Penal Code read with Sections 302, 504 and 34 of Indian Penal Code, and sentenced for life imprisonment till end of life, and fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default, simple imprisonment for six months, for Section 504 rigorous imprisonment for three months and fine of Rs.100/-, in default, simple imprisonment for seven days for the offence under Section 135 of Bombay Police Act, have preferred this appeal and have challenged the judgment and order dated 1.6.2005 passed by learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Gandhinagar. In the said incident, husband and wife lost their lives who were neighbours of the appellants.

(2.) The case of the prosecution led before the trial court is that, one FIR was lodged by one Milankumar Hargovinddas Makwana with Sector 7 Police Station at Gandhinagar alleging that the appellants attacked deceased Ashokbhai Punjabhai with deadly weapon like iron pipe and gave several blows on the person of the deceased. It was further alleged that when the accused were giving blows to deceased Ashokbhai, his wife namely Varshaben intervene and tried to save her husband from the attack. When she intervened and tried to stop the accused persons from giving further blows to her husband, both the accused gave several pipe blows to deceased Varshaben. Due to this attack, Ashokbhai as well as Varshaben received several injuries on several parts of the body which ultimately resulted into death of both these victims.

(3.) The main attack on the judgment of the trial court by learned Senior Counsel Mr.K.B.Anandjiwala is with regard to accepting the oral testimony of the complainant as well as the child witness namely Kurul, aged about 9 years, who is son of the deceased, and who posed himself as an eye-witness to this incident. It was submitted that the deposition of complainant Milankumar Hargvoinddas Makwana P.W.1 Exh.21 is untrustworthy, since his testimony before the trial court is in contradiction with the deposition of the child witness.