BHADRESHKUMAR MAHENDRAKUMAR PATEL Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment and order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bharuch in Sessions Case No.55 of 2006 dated 10.08.2007 whereby, the appellant, original accused, has been convicted for the offences punishable u/s.302, 201 and 404 of Indian Penal Code (for short, "the IPC"). For conviction u/s.302 IPC, the appellant has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.40,000/and in case of default in making payment of fine, he was ordered to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of four years. For conviction u/s.201 IPC, the appellant has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and fine of Rs.4,000/and in case of default in making payment of fine, he was ordered to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of one year. For conviction u/s.404 IPC, the appellant has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs.2,000/and in case of default in making payment of fine, he was ordered to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of four months. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. The appellant was granted the benefit of setoff. Out of the total amount of fine that may be received from the appellant, an amount of Rs.40,000/was ordered to be paid to the widow of deceased as compensation u/s.357 Cr.P.C.

(2.) THE facts in brief are that Sayeed Rasulkha Itamkha Pathan, the complainant herein, was residing along with his family at Village Ikhar, Taluka Aamod, District Bharuch and was earning his livelihood by working as a Mechanic in a shop owned by Dineshbhai Sanatkumar Thakkar. It is the case of the prosecution that the appellant herein used to frequently visit the shop of said Dineshbhai and therefore, was known to both of them. The appellant had borrowed an amount of Rs.40,000/from said Dineshbhai and had not returned the same within the agreed time.

(3.) MR . JM Buddhabhatti learned counsel appearing with Mr. GC Ray for the appellant submitted that the Court below has committed serious error in law and on facts in convicting the appellant for the alleged offence. He submitted that there is no direct evidence on record to connect the appellant with the crime and that the prosecution has failed to prove the chain of circumstances leading to the guilt of appellant. He, therefore, submitted that the impugned judgment convicting the appellant deserves to be quashed and set aside and the appellant deserves to be acquitted by granting him the benefit of doubt.