CHETANKUMAR DAHYABHAI PATEL Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is preferred by the original accused appellant, herein, challenging the judgment and order of the Joint District and Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Bharuch, rendered in Sessions Case No. 134 of 1998, Dated : 05.04.2003, whereby, the trial Court convicted the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.2,000/ - and in default to undergo further imprisonment for six months. The appellant was also convicted for the offence punishable under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay fine of Rs.500/ - and in default to undergo further imprisonment for two months.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case of the prosecution, as set out before the trial Court, reads as under;

(3.) A written complaint was given by one Bharatbhai Chhotalal Surati to the PI, Ankleshwar, on 20.04.1996, wherein, he stated that his daughter, namely Sonali, was lured away by the appellant before about two years, and thereafter, though, the complainant had made attempts to trace out Sonali, the same was of no avail. It is, further, stated in the complaint that the complainant himself had met the appellant and had asked him about Sonali, but, the appellant did not permit him to meet Sonali. Hence, the complainant was constrained to approach the police. On registration of the complaint, police commenced the investigation and effected the arrest of the appellant in the presence of panchas after drawing a due panchnama. During the course of his interrogation, the appellant revealed that he had pushed Sonali from over Sardar Bridge on 22.05.1994. Hence, another complaint came to be filed by the PSI, Valasad, and then, the panchnama of the place of offence was drawn. On finding prima facie evidence, a charge sheet was laid against the appellant. At the time of trial, since, the appellant did not plead guilty and claimed to be tried, he was tried for the alleged offence and at the end of the trial, the trial Court passed the judgment and order, as referred to herein above. Hence, the present appeal.