MOHMAD SALIM ABDUL RAZAQ Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) As these three appeals are arising from a judgment dated 21/5/1994 rendered in Sessions Case No. 102 of 1992 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Panch Mahals at Godhra, Camp at Dohad (who will be referred to hereinafter as the learned Judge of the trial Court), at the request of learned Advocates for both the parties in these three appeals, they are heard together and decided and disposed of by this common judgment.

(2.) The original accused Nos. 1, 2 and 3 have, by preferring their respective appeals namely Criminal Appeal Nos. 681 of 1994, 693 of 1994 and 555 of 1994 respectively under Sec. 374(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (for short "Cr.P.C."), challenged the legality and validity of judgment of conviction and sentence rendered by the learned Judge of the trial Court in Sessions Case No. 102 of 1992 dated 21-05-1994 by which (1) original accused No.1 is convicted under Sec.235(2) of Cr.P.C. for an offence punishable under Sec.302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short "I.P.C"). and is sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.250/- and in default, to undergo further Simple Imprisonment for seven days. He is also convicted for an offence punishable under Sec. 323 of I.P.C. and also for offence punishable under Sec.135 of the Bombay Police Act, 1951 (for short "B.P.Act") but no separate sentences are inflicted for said two offences; (2) the accused No.2 is convicted for an offence punishable under Sec.302 of I.P.C. read with Sec.114 of I.P.C. and is sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.250/- and in default, to undergo further Simple Imprisonment for seven days; and (3) accused No.3 is convicted for an offence punishable under Sec. 323 of I.P.C. and is sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.250/and in default, to undergo further Simple Imprisonment for seven days.

(3.) The facts leading to these three appeals which are unfolded by the complainant P.W.2 Harishchandra Chunilal Sharma in his complaint Ex.18 dated 13-1-1991 can be summarised as follows:-