SHANAJI LALJI DABHI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SHANAJI Lalji Dabhi, who was an accused in Sessions Case No. 72 of 2007, was arraigned for commission of the offence of murder, punishable under Section 302 of the IPC, and for keeping weapon in violation of the notification of the State Government, punishable under Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act, has preferred the present appeal, whereby, he has challenged the judgment and order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 6th Fast Track Court, Sabarkantha, Camp at Modasa, Dated : 30.10.2007, whereby, he was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/ - and in default to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for six months for the offence under Section 302 of the IPC and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay fine of Rs.500/ - and in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months for the offence under Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act.

(2.) THE prosecution was set into motion by the First Information Report given to the police by one Dansinh Pratapsinh Jadeja. In the complaint given by him, Dansinh stated that they are five brothers, out of which the deceased Devusinh was the youngest. The deceased Devusinh was serving in the Forest Department as a watchman. The complainant, then, stated that before about two years of the alleged offence, the appellant illegally cut the trees of 'Saag' and 'Nilgiri' from nursery of the Forest Department and on account of that the deceased, Devusinh, had reprimanded the appellant and had also slapped the appellant, since, the appellant had abused him. According to the complainant, on account of the aforesaid incident, the relations between the appellant and the deceased were strained. The complainant then stated that on the date of the alleged incident, at about 07:00 p.m., his nephew, Jagatsinh Ramsinh, came back with the bicycle of the deceased and when the complainant asked as to where was the deceased, Jagatsinh told him that the deceased and the appellant were standing near the bus stop and the deceased had asked him to take his bicycle home.

(3.) TO establish the guilt of the appellant, the prosecution examined the following witnesses, whose evidence were read before us and we scrutinized the evidence of each wintess; <FRM>JUDGEMENT_223_LAWS(GJH)9_20131.html</FRM>