DEVJIBHAI @ CHAMANBHAI HIRABHAI GADHVI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present appellant-original accused no. 1 has preferred this appeal under sec. 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 8.6.2005 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 1, Surendranagar in Sessions Case No. 37/2004, whereby, the learned trial Judge has convicted the present appellant-original Accused under sec. 302 of IPC and sentenced to undergo R/I for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/-, in default, to undergo further R/I for six months. The appellant is also convicted for the offence under sec. 201 of IPC and sentenced to undergo R/I for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs 500/-, in default, to undergo further R/I for three months, which is impugned in this appeal.

(2.) THE brief facts of the prosecution case is that on 1.3.2004, at about 10.30pm at night, in village Nagnesh, Taluka Chuda, when the appellant-accused with his wife at his house, he had an altercation with his wife because she refused to have sexual inter-course with appellant, and therefore, appellant got agitated for this and the accused got hold of the knife which was lying in the house and inflicted several blows on the deceased and she died. The further fact is that during night time, he did not even take care to take her to the hospital for treatment. After committing murder of his wife, the appellant had hidden his clothes having blood stains which he had put on at the time of committing murder of his wife. Therefore, a complaint was filed.

(3.) THE genesis and the motive of the offence is revealed by the ocular version of PW-9 Mangalbhai Danabhai Chauhan Exh. 28. The deceased and the accused were married 12 years ago. They had two sons and one daughter. The gist of his ocular version is that his deceased daughter and the accused were staying with at village Nagnesh separately from the parents of the accused. The witness further stated that when his deceased daughter used to come to meet him, she had conveyed to him that she was mentally and physically harassed by her husband. When the deceased and accused came to Ahmedabad, the accused had conveyed that they had come to find out some job. It is a fact that he is not eye witness to the incident but his evidence assumes importance. That in the telephone, which he received, it was mentioned that the husband had done away with his daughter and the dead-body was at Limbadi hospital, where he rushed. In his examination-in-chief, he has conveyed that his daughter has conveyed him that the accused had illicit relation with some lady and that is why he was harassing his daughter. Nothing fruitful has come out from the cross-examination of this witness which would help the accused.. The mother of the deceased has also given evidence on similar line, and therefore, the same is not discussed in detail. However, she has remained silent as to the cause of death of her daughter.