LAWS(GJH)-2013-7-473

VINOD @ KALU MOHANBHAI YADAV Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

Decided On July 16, 2013
Vinod @ Kalu Mohanbhai Yadav Appellant
V/S
STATE OF GUJARAT Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellants were interalia sentenced to life imprisonment and were ordered to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default simple imprisonment for three months by impugned judgement and order dated 24.04.2007 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 4, City Sessions Court, Ahmedabad in Sessions Case No. 349 of 2005 for the offence punishable under section 302 r/w section 114 of Indian Penal Code. Original accused no. 1 was further sentenced to simple imprisonment for four months and was ordered to pay fine of Rs. 100/-, in default, imprisonment for seven days. The accused were given benefit to set off. Being aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence, the appellants have preferred the present appeals.

(2.) A complaint was filed by P.W. 4, Hariom Gupta ­ complainant, who owns auto rickshaw no. GJ-9-T-1896, stating that on 23.11.2004 at about 09.45 pm while he was waiting for ferrying passengers near AMTS Bus Stand No. 137, near Motimahal Hotel, Kalupur, P.W. 1 and the deceased Arvindbhai were standing there. It is stated therein that at that time an unknown person came there driving an autorickshaw wherein another person was sitting. The autorickshaw driver asked P.W.1 and the deceased to move their autorickshaws to another place or pay money which was not complied with by them. It is further stated in the complaint that a quarrel took place between the said autorickshaw driver and P.W.1 as well as deceased. At this point of time, the person who was sitting in the autorickshaw driven by unknown person gave a knife blow on the abdomen of Arvindbhai and ran away towards Kalupur Circle. Arvindbhai started shouting for help and the complainant as well as P.W. 1 took Arvindbhai to hospital where he was treated.

(3.) MR . Manish Patel, learned advocate appearing for appellant of Criminal Appeal No. 1003 of 2007 ­ original accused no. 1 submitted that it is the say of the prosecution that P.W. 1 and P.W. 4 are eye witnesses but from the record it transpires that they were not present at the scene of offence.