ARVINDBHAI SURMABHAI VARSAT Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY way of this appeal, the appellant, original accused, has challenged judgment and order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.1, Himmatnagar, CampIdar, in Sessions Case No.126/2008 dated 16.10.2010, whereby, the appellant herein, original accused, has been convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 302, 201, 120(B) and 323 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, "the IPC") For conviction under section 302 of the IPC, the appellant has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.5,000/, in default of payment of fine, he shall undergo further simple imprisonment for three months. For conviction under section 201 of the IPC, the appellant has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and fine of Rs.5,000/, in default of payment of fine, he shall undergo further simple imprisonment for one month. For conviction under section 120 (B) of the IPC, the appellant has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs.1,000/, in default of payment of fine, he shall undergo further simple imprisonment for one month. For conviction under section 323 of the IPC, the appellant has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month and fine of Rs.100/, in default of payment of fine, he shall undergo further simple imprisonment for seven. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently and the appellant has been given the benefit of set off. The appellant has been acquitted for the charge u/s. 135 of the Bombay Police Act.

(2.) A complaint was filed by the complainantNaranbhai, nephew of deceased, inter alia alleging that he is residing with his parents and doing agriculture work. The deceased and Manilal Surmabhai Versatmaternal uncle of the complainant are brotherinlaw. It is further alleged that the wife of deceased had gone to her maternal house at Tikuri village before the incident. On 03.03.3008 his uncle Natwarbhai requested him to accompany him to go to Mota village to see his aunty. The complainant and his uncle had gone to Manilal's house at Mota Kantiharia village, but they did not find Gitabencomplainant's aunty. While returning to home, on the way complainants' another maternal uncleArvindbhaiappellant herein, met them and taken them to his home.

(3.) LEARNED advocate for the appellant has assailed the impugned judgment and order by submitting that the trial Court has passed the impugned judgment and order without appreciating the evidence on record. He contended that there is no eye witness to the incident, who testified that the appellant was the perpetrator of the murder. According to learned advocate for the appellant even the chain of circumstance is not complete.