LAWS(GJH)-2013-3-306

MELABHAI HIMATBHAI PARMAR Vs. STATE OF GUAJRAT

Decided On March 20, 2013
Melabhai Himatbhai Parmar Appellant
V/S
State Of Guajrat Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellantoriginal accused having been sentenced to life imprisonment upon being found guilty for the offence punishable u/s. 302 of the Indian Penal Code (for short "IPC") and section 135 of the Bombay Police Act (for short "BP Act") by learned Additional Sessions Judge(Fast Track Court), Vadodara, in its judgment and order dated 11.08.2006, in Sessions case No.14 of 2006, has invoked Section 374 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973.

(2.) AN FIR, produced at Exh.13, in the Sessions case came to be lodged on 25th September, 2005 by one Bilashben wife of Susang Madhawbhai Parmar, complaining about the accused, who was her brother inlaw and neighbour, having done to death Dariyaben, the mother of the informant, between 12:00 & 12:15 p.m. It is the case of the complainant/informant that before eight days of the alleged incident, the accused objected to Dariyaben throwing waste water in the field of accused, which triggered altercation between them and ultimately her mother had agreed not to throw the waste water in the field of the accusedMelabhai Himmatbhai Parmar.

(3.) AS against that the learned APP invited our attention to the testimony of various witnesses including those of two eye witnesses being PW5, Daxaben and PW3complainant, at Exh.17 and 11 respectively. He submitted that coupled with the fact that their testimony was consistent and nothing could be brought out by defence in their cross examination, the evidence was corroborated by Inquest Panchanama, Post Mortem report, which proved beyond reasonable doubt, the injuries sustained by the deceased as also the Serological report finds the blood stains of deceased on weapon of the offence, discovered from the accused as also the garments of the deceased. He therefore, submitted that there was no room for acquittal of the accused. There was nothing on record, indicating Sursingh's illintention to grab appellant's land, neither there was any material on record to show the guilty mind of Unusbhai to falsely implicate the accused.