MUKESHBHAI RAMTUBHAI PARMAR Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant was accused before Sessions Court, Nadiad, in Sessions Case No. 31 of 2006. He came to be tried and convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 307 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to RI for 10 years with a fine of Rs. 25,000/-, in default, RI for two years and RI for three years with fine of Rs. 2,000/-, in default, RI for six months respectively. The Trial Court has given set off to the accused and both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. The Trial Court has also ordered that if the fine is paid by the accused, an amount of Rs. 25,000/- shall be paid to the complainant by way of compensation.

(2.) AS per the prosecution case, the incident occurred on 8.8.2005 at about 5.30 hours in the morning at village Bhungiya in the house of Badarbhai Shanabhai Parmar, located at Indira Awas. Said first informant Badarbhai Shanabhai Parmar was sleeping in the Osri of his house. His daughter Savita was also sleeping in the Osri. At about 5.30 hours in the morning, the accused - appellant went to the house of the first informant, armed with a dharia and a knife. He took out the dharia and attacked Badarbhai Shanabhai Parmar, causing multiple injuries on vital parts of his body. There was a havoc because of the attack and, therefore, the first informant's daughter � Savita woke up and intervened. Even she was attacked with dharia by the appellant and when she snatched away the dharia from the appellant, the appellant attacked the first informant with knife and caused further injuries to the first informant Badarbhai Shanabhai Parmar. The appellant is alleged to have made nurturing animosity with the first informant because of an incident which had occurred in the past. The said incident was that the appellant had teased the wife of the first informant, because of which, the first informant had given some thrashes to the accused appellant and, therefore, on the relevant day, the appellant allegedly attacked the first informant so also his daughter Savitaben upon her intervention.

(3.) THE prosecution has examined both the victims i.e. first informant - Badarbhai Shanabhai Parmar, as PW-1 at Exhibit-6 and Savita as PW-9 at Exhibit-31. Both these witnesses have suffered injury at the hands of the accused and they have struck to their version in their depositions in spite of a thorough cross- examination. What emerges from their evidence is that both of them were sleeping in the Osri of the house on the relevant day, when in the early morning hours at about 5.30, the appellant came with a dharia and attacked Badarbhai Shanabhai Parmar, who was asleep. There was no dialogue, no altercation, no quarrel, no fight. There is no history of any dispute in the recent past between the first informant and accused. On being attacked, first informant Badarbhai Shanabhai Parmar resisted. There was some commotion which woke up his daughter Savita. Savita is aged about 20 years. She has shown good courage. She immediately resisted the attack and was, ultimately, able to snatch away the dharia from the accused. Of course, in the meantime, several blows were given to Badarbhai Shanabhai Parmar as well as Savita with that dharia. When the dharia was snatched away by Savita from appellant, he attacked Badarbhai Shanabhai Parmar with a knife and injured him further. In the meantime, neighbouring residents Ramanbhai, Babubhai, Rajubhai, Manjulaben, etc came and therefore, the accused � appellant escaped from the place along with the dharia and knife.