SALIM ABHU JUNEJA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment dated 25.02.2010 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kachchh at Bhuj in Sessions Case No.13 of 2009. The appellant was original accused. He was charged with the offence punishable under Section 302. He was convicted for such offence and sentenced to imprisonment for life. For the reasons which follow, we would be well advised not to enter into the nature of evidence on record and its appreciation by the learned Judge in the impugned judgment. Briefly stated the prosecution version was that the accused and the deceased resided in the same locality in the village Sukhparvas, Taluka: Mundra. One Haroon Noormamad and the wife of the accused had eloped. The accused suspected that the deceased as a friend of Haroon Noormamad had a hand in this incident. Late at night of 2nd November 2008 i.e. in the early morning hours of 3:00 O'clock of 3rd November 2008 when the deceased was sleeping on a cot just outside his house, the accused attacked him with an axe causing his death. This incident was witnessed by the mother of the deceased who was sleeping close by in the veranda of the house. The father of the deceased was also sleeping there. He was, however, blind. The accused ran away and was arrested on 13th November 2008.

(2.) LEARNED Advocate Shri AP Shah for the appellant, after taking us through the entire evidence in addition to contending that the conviction of the appellant was wholly unsustainable, raised an alternative argument that the accused was not of sound mind when the trial was conducted. He was unable to defend himself due to such disability. The Trial Court, therefore, ought to have followed the procedure laid down in Sections 329 and 330 of Criminal Procedure Code. He contended that this procedure was not followed. The trial thus continued against a person of unsound mind. The trial had therefore vitiated.

(3.) WE have also heard learned Additional Public Prosecutor Ms. Punani for the State and perused the materials on record. We are inclined to allow the alternative contention of the counsel for the appellant and therefore restrain from referring to the other evidence on record.