MANABHAI @ MANIYO KOKABHAI PARMAR Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHALLENGE in this appeal is to the judgment and order dated passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.2, Himmatnagar, in Sessions Case No.128/2005 dated 06.12.2006 whereby, the appellant herein, original accused, has been convicted for the offences punishable u/s. 396 of Indian Penal Code (for short, "the IPC"), u/s.25 of the Arms Act and u/s. 135 of the Bombay Police Act ( for short "the B.P. Act"). For conviction u/s. 396 of the IPC, the appellant has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.1,000/and in case of default of payment of fine, simple imprisonment for a further period of one month. For conviction u/s.25 of the Arms Act, the appellant has been sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for three years and fine of Rs.500/and in default of payment of fine, simple imprisonment for a further period of fifteen days. For conviction u/s.135 of the B.P. Act, the appellant has been sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one month and fine of Rs.25/and in default of payment of fine, simple imprisonment for three days. The appellant has been acquitted for the charge u/s.397, 398, 323, 324, 120(B) r/w section 34 of the IPC. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently and the appellant was given the benefit of setoff.

(2.) A complaint was lodged by the complainantParbhubhai Hamirji Rabari on 06.07.2002, inter alia alleging that he is engaged in rearing and tending of livestock of sheep and goat and for that purpose he along with 20 other persons came in Gujarat with their cattle near about five months ago and as the rainy season set in, they returned to their native along with cattle. On 06.07.2002 in the early morning while they reached on the road of Mamapipla, a group of some 20 to 30 persons attacked them.

(3.) AT the end of trial, the Court below recorded the further statement of the accused u/s.313 of the Criminal Procedure Code and ultimately, passed the impugned judgment and order of conviction, which is under challenge in this appeal.