JANGLIYABHAI RANGLABHAI DHANUK Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present appeal is at the instance of a convict accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, and is directed against an order of conviction and sentence dated 5th May, 2006, passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-II, Chhota Udepur, Dist: Vadodara in Sessions Case No.70 of 2004. By the aforesaid order, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge found the appellant guilty of the offence punishable U/s.302 of the Indian Penal Code and consequently sentenced him to suffer life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.100.00. In default of payment of fine, the appellant was directed to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one month. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge also declined to give benefit of set off of the period of detention undergone by the accused U/s.428 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

(2.) CASE of the Prosecution : 2.1 The deceased Naranbhai Jandubhai was residing at Village Moti Sadhli situated in Ta: Chhota Udepur, Dist: Vadodara with his wife and children. On 28th May, 2004, there was a religious function at the house of one Chhitubhai Anudiyabhai Rathva resident of village Moti Sadhli. As per the custom and ritual, small children of the village are fed food. Accordingly, on 28th May, 2004, Chhitubhai Anudiyabhai Rathva had invited children of the village at his house to have food. Food was being served from morning till evening. People came with their respective children and after having food left the house of Chhitubhai. It is the case of the prosecution that on that day when food was being served at the house of Chhitubhai, the accused had also came at the house of Chhitubhai with an iron Paliya in his hand and sat down amongst small children to have food. The deceased being a villager of the same village, was helping Chhitubhai in serving food. The deceased served rice to the accused and at that point of time the accused felt that the deceased had served less quantity of rice. The accused felt bad and therefore, asked the deceased as to why the deceased served less rice to the accused. According to the case of the prosecution, so saying, the accused all of a sudden inflicted injury on the neck of the deceased with an iron paliya causing instantaneous death of the deceased. The aforesaid is the sum and substance of the case of the prosecution. It is also the case of the prosecution that on the date of the incident, the wife of the deceased had also come at the house of Chhitubhai with her children and was present at the time when the incident occurred. 2.2 The wife of the deceased PW.2 Ghugariben lodged a First Information Report about the incident at 20.40 hours on the same date with Rangpur Police Station. On the strength of the first information report ­ Exh.46, investigation commenced. Inquest Panchnama ­ Exh.25 of the dead body of the deceased was drawn in presence of the panch witnesses. The deadbody of the deceased was sent for Postmortem examination. The postmortem examination revealed that the deceased had sustained a sharp cutting wound 9cm x 5 cm on the neck and all vessels were found cut. The cause of death assigned was cardio respiratory arrest due to injury and loss of blood. Thereafter scene of offence Panchnama was drawn in presence of two panch witnesses. On 29th May, 2004, the accused surrendered himself before Rangpur Police Station and on his own free will and volition produced the iron Paliya with which injuries were inflicted on the deceased. The panchnama of the person of the accused was drawn at Exh.31 in the presence of two panch witnesses. The clothes of the accused were also collected and thereafter, were sent to Forensic Science Laboratory for chemical analysis. The panchnama of the clothes of the deceased Exh.34 was drawn. A map of the scene of offence Exh.38 was prepared. The statements of the witnesses were recorded and on completion of the investigation, finally the Investigating Officer filed charge-sheet in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Chhota Udepur.

(3.) THE prosecution adduced the following oral evidence in support of its case.