LAXMANBHAI GABHABHAI AJRA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PRESENT appeal is preferred by the original accused against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 27.03.2009 passed by the 7th Additional Sessions Judge, Surat in Sessions Case No. 76 of 2008 for the offences punishable under sections 302 and 188(1) of Indian Penal Code. The original accused was ordered to undergo life imprisonment & was ordered to pay fine of Rs. 500/ -, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month for offence under section 302 of Indian Penal Code and simple imprisonment for one month and was ordered to pay fine of Rs. 200/ -, in default, simple imprisonment for five days for offence under section 188(1) of Indian Penal Code. The case of the prosecution is based upon a complaint given by the complainant - one Hamirbhai Popatbhai wherein it is stated that on 15.12.2007 at around 10.00 pm when the complainant after having supper was asleep, he heard someone calling his name near the main gate. He has stated that when the gate was opened an autorickshaw came inside and the appellant - accused - Laxmanbhai got out of the autorickshaw and asked the complainant to accompany him to the hospital. When the complainant asked the reason, the appellant - accused told him that his wife had sustained burn injuries as their hut had caught fire. The complainant has stated that in the autorickshaw the appellant, his wife and four children, an adult and the autorickshaw driver were present and therefore the complainant gave the appellant - accused Rs. 400/ - to meet with the treatment expenses and told him to leave his two daughters with the complainant. It is the case of the complainant that the appellant - accused thereafter took his wife to hospital in the autorickshaw. The minor daughter of the appellant - accused had also sustained burn injuries on her head and she was also taken to hospital.

(2.) MR . Pratik Barot, learned advocate appearing for the appellant submitted that the prosecution failed to prove the case against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. He submitted that there are no eye witnesses to the present incident other than the evidence of minor daughter of the deceased and that the case is based on circumstantial evidence. He submitted that nothing is brought on record to show that the accused is involved in the alleged offence.

(3.) WE have gone through the judgment and order passed by the trial court. We have also perused the oral as well as documentary evidence led by the trial court and also considered the submissions made by learned Advocate for the appellant and the State.