GOVINDBHAI DAHYABHAI BHOI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This group of appeals arises out of common judgment and order rendered by Sessions Court, Nadiad in Sessions Cases No.158 of 2005 and 159 of 2005 dated 9th May, 2006, convicting the appellants for the offences punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34, Section 120B read with Section 34 and Section 201 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing them to rigorous imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.3,000/-, in default, rigorous imprisonment for six months; and rigorous imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.1,500/-, in default, rigorous imprisonment for three months; and rigorous imprisonment for three years with fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, rigorous imprisonment for one month, respectively.

(2.) The appellant in criminal appeal No.1028 of 2006 Govindbhai Dahyabhai Bhoi was accused no.1 before the trial Court, the appellant in criminal appeal No.1030 of 2006 Mahesh alias Bhagat Bhikhabhai Bhoi was accused no.2 before the trial Court and appellant in criminal appeal no.1031 of 2006 Ishwarbhai Dahyabhai Bhoi was accused no.3 before the trial Court. Since all these appeals arise out of common judgment and order and they are heard together and are disposed of by this common judgment and for the sake of convenience, the appellants are referred to by their original status as accused before the trial Court.

(3.) As per prosecution case, accused no.1 and accused no.3 are full blood brothers, whereas accused no.2 is the brother-in-law (wife's brother) of accused no.3. Accused no.1 and accused no.3 had a third brother viz., Kantibhai, with whom, accused no.1 had certain disputes relating to their properties. It is the case of the prosecution that accused nos.1, 2 and 3 conspired to commit murder of Kantibhai and to destroy the evidence of murder of Kantibhai and in furtherance of that conspiracy, they joined hands and acted with common intention. In doing so, accused nos.1, 2 and 3 caused death of Kantibhai by causing injuries with iron pipe, dagger and 'Ateda' (one of the weapons) and by strangulating him with the shirt, which the deceased was wearing. It is the further case of the prosecution that after causing death of Kantibhai, the appellants put the dead body on highway, just to give the colour of accident to the incident. According to the prosecution, this episode occurred between 3-00 am and 7-00 am, on 11th February, 2005. The dead body was noticed for the first time at about 8-00 am on that day. To put it in a chronological order, it can be said that there was a marriage ceremony in the family and pursuant thereto, a 'Garaba' (Gujarati folk dance) function was held on 11.02.2005. Since the ladies' folks continued with 'Garabas' upto early morning hours, the deceased - Kantibhai, after having a talk with his wife Kailashben, PW 1, went to the rest place, where they were housed. He departed from the place of 'Garaba' at about 3-00 am. When his wife Kailashben, after completing 'Garaba', went to the rest place, she did not find the deceased and therefore, she started search for him. While the search was on, a news was received that one dead body is found on the highway and therefore, the wife of the victim and others, including PW 5, rushed to the highway and found that the dead body was of deceased Kantibhai. There was no clothes on it and there were several injuries. A shirt was tied round the neck. The shirt was the one which the deceased was wearing. On the basis of this, offence was registered and investigation was made. Police, having found sufficient evidence, filed charge-sheet in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Kheda, who, in turn, committed the case to the Court of Sessions and Sessions Cases No.158 of 2005 and 159 of 2005 came to be registered. Charge was framed against the accused at Exh.4, to which, they pleaded not guilty and came to be tried. After considering the evidence led by the prosecution, the trial Court found that the charges were proved by the prosecution against the accused and recorded their conviction and passed sentence as stated hereinabove and hence, this appeal.