THAKOR NAGJIJI KACHARAJI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BOTH these appeals arise out of a common judgement and award dated 20.10.2010 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge and Presiding Officer, Third Fast Track Court, Mehsana Camp at Visnagar in Sessions Case No. 89 of 2008 whereby original accused no. 1 was convicted for the offence punishable under section 302 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to life imprisonment and fine of Rs. 3000/ -, in default, additional imprisonment for three months. Original accused no. 1 was, however, acquitted of the offence under section 135 of B.P. Act he was charged with.

(2.) THE short facts of the prosecution case as narrated in the First Information Report being C.R. I. No. 80 of 2008 lodged with Visnagar Police station is that on 15.03.2008 at about 09.00 pm, the complainant and one Pramodbhai Manilal Patel had gone to their filed and all the three accused were present in the field of Ganpatbhai Patel. It is stated in the complaint that on seeing Pramodbhai the accused persons started speaking fithy language. It is further stated that one Nikunjbhai and the deceased came to the filed to inform Pramodbhai that his brother Navinbhai Patel had met with an accident at Ahmedabad.

(3.) MR . Yogendra Thakore, learned advocate appearing for original accused no. 1 submitted that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and therefore benefit of doubt ought to be given to the accused no. 1. he submitted that this is a case of circumstantial evidence and in the present case the prosecution failed to prove each circumstance by independent evidence. He submitted that the trial court has wrongly held original accused no. 1 guilty when the actual agressor was the deceased himself and not the accused. Mr. Thakore contended that even if it is assumed that the original accused no. 1 is the culprit, this Court may consider the fact that the entire incident occurred in a spur of moment and that there was no motive behind the same. He submitted that it is nobody s case that there was any premeditation in committing the alleged offence and that that it was in the process of a fight between the parties. There is no evidence regarding any previous enmity between the parties and that the blow was not severe or intended to cause death of the deceased and, thus, the case would come under Exception 4 of Section 300 of the Code.