RANCHHODBHAI SONDABHAI DABHI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE appeals arise out of the same judgement of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Surendranagar dated 05.07.2010 in Sessions Case No. 37 of 2009. Criminal Appeal No. 1298 of 2010 has been filed by original accused No.1, who has been convicted for offence under Sections 302 and 201 of Indian Penal Code. He has been sentenced to life imprisonment and rigorous imprisonment for three years respectively for such offences. He has, therefore, filed the said appeal challenging his conviction and sentence. Original accused No.2, Vijuben Babubhai was acquitted by the Sessions Court by the said judgement. The State has, therefore, preferred Criminal Appeal No. 1667 of 2010 challenging such acquittal.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated the prosecution version was that: Accused No.2, Vijuben was married to deceased Hemubhai Dineshbhai Makwana. She, however, had an affair with accused No.1, Ranchhod Dabhi, who also happened to be her distant uncle. Since they found Hemubhai an obstacle in their relations, they conspired to eliminate him by committing his murder. Accused No.1 Ranchhod called up the deceased in the night of 27.02.2009 on his mobile and called him to meet his wife. When Hemubhai came on his motor cycle to meet his wife, accused No.1 assaulted him in the sim of Village Vadadhra in Muli Taluka and gave knife blows on his stomach and the side causing his death. With the help of two juvenile accused, the dead body was, thereafter, carried on a motor cycle across a small rivulet and hidden inside the cavity of a well situated in the village known by the name of Limdi Mahajan ni Vadi. The Hero Honda motor cycle of the deceased was, thereafter, thrown in another well which had water. The shirt of the deceased which had come off was hidden. The accused had, thus, committed offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 read with Section 34 of IPC. It is further the case of the prosecution that the mobile phone of the deceased was given to juvenile accused Ashok Virambhai, after removing the sim card which Ashok sold away in the market.

(3.) CHARGE was framed at Exh. 6 which was a fairly detailed charge against both the accused. It runs parallel to the prosecution version, we have noticed above. It would, therefore, not be necessary to reproduce the entire charge. In short, for the above mentioned acts, both the accused were charged with offence punishable under Sections 302 and 201 read with Section 34 of IPC.