BALDEVBHAI SARADBHAI VASAVA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY way of this appeal, the appellant has challenged the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.1, Nadiad, dated 14.03.2007, whereby, the appellant herein, original accused, has been convicted for life imprisonment for the offence punishable u/s.302 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, "the IPC") and fine of Rs. 50,000/ , in default of payment of fine, the appellant shall undergo further sentence of simple imprisonment for three years. The appellant has been acquitted for the charge u/s. 135 of the Bombay Police Act. The appellant has given the benefit of set off.

(2.) A complaint was filed by the complainant Chimanbhai Poojabhai Rathod, inter alia alleging that his wife Ilaben was serving as Nurse with Pipalata Government Ayurvedic Hospital for the last ten years and they residing in staff quarters with their children. Beside their room one Shakuntalaben, daughter of Ganibhai Vasawa was residing with his husband Baldevbhai, appellant herein and children for the last five years. Said Shakuntalben was working in the Canteen of said Ayurvedic Hospital. It is alleged in the complaint that the relationship between the appellant and the deceased was strained. On 27.8.2006, at about 9:00 am. when the complainant was at home, at that time Baldevbhai opened the lock of his house and entered into the room and closed the door from inside. Thereafter at about 11:00 am. when Shakuntaben returned home and knocked the door his husband opened the door and Shakuntlaben entered the room. It is further alleged in the complaint that thereafter a quarrel took place between them and after half an hour the present appellant came out of the house and told that since his wife was having bad character he himself has inflicted blow by edged weapon on her. Thereafter, the complainant went to the house of present appellant and saw the dead body of Shakuntalaben was lying near the door in a pool of blood. Thereafter, the complaint was filed.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the appellant contended that learned trial Court without appreciating the evidence on record has passed the impugned judgment and order. He further contended that there is no eye witness to the incident in question. Therefore, he prayed to allow this appeal and acquit the present appellant of the charges levelled against him.