SURSINGBHAI MAHIJIBHAI PADHIYAR Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY way of this appeal, the appellant has challenged the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 14.06.2007, passed by the Principal Sessions Judge, Bharuch, in Sessions Case No.86 of 2006, whereby the appellant has been convicted for the offences punishable under section 302 read with section 114 of the Indian Penal Code (for short the IPC ) and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/ - and in default to pay the fine, further imprisonment for four months. The appellant was given the benefit of set -off.

(2.) A complaint was filed on 30th May, 2006 at 9:00 hours by the complainant -Arjunbhai Dalpatbhai Solanki, inter alia alleging that on 30th May, 2006 at about 6:00 am., while he was going to his agricultural field, he saw the dead body of his uncle lying near the house of Sursingbhai Mahjibhai Padhiyar, accused herein. Upon being inquired as to what happened to his uncle, the accused informed that yesterday, at about 9:00 p.m., his uncle and one Raisangh Prabhat came view to stealing iron rods lying in his agricultural field. When the accused saw them, Raisang Prabhat ran away leaving the iron rods, while his uncle, who was in intoxicated condition, was caught hold by the accused. Thereafter, his uncle was brought at home by inflicting kick and fists blows. It is also alleged that on the same day, the accused had informed the Sarpanch of the village about the said incident. It is also alleged that since the deceased had consumed much liquor, he slept outside the home of the accused. On the next day, when the complainant got up in the morning, he came to know about the incident. He, therefore, came at the place, where his uncle was lying dead. Hence, the complainant met his father and narrated about the entire incident. According to the complainant, the accused and his son Haresh Sursang had inflicted kick and fists blows thereby his uncle scummed to injuries. Thereafter, the complaint was filed.

(3.) LEARNED advocate for the appellant has contended that the trial Court has committed an error in convicting the present appellant since there was nothing on record to establish that the appellant himself has committed the crime inasmuch as there is no eye witness to the incident in question. He further contended that the entire incident only based on circumstantial evidence and except the family members of the deceased, no other witness supported the case of the prosecution. He further contended that since there was an animosity against the present appellant, P.W.10, Deputy Sarpanch has supported the case of the prosecution.