MOHANBHAI @ LALO VALJIBHAI AHIR Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment and order passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Court No.10, Ahmedabad City in Sessions Case No.243 of 2006 whereby, the appellant, original accused, has been convicted for the offence punishable u/s. 302 of Indian Penal Code (for short, " the IPC") and has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.1000/- and in case of default, he was ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for further period of three months.

(2.) The case of the prosecution, briefly stated, was that on 23.06.2005, at around 1430 hrs., when the complainant was at his factory, he received a phone call from his mother, whereby the complainant was informed that the appellant herein, who happens to be the maternal uncle of the complainant, had approached the deceased-mother of the complainant and had demanded money. When the mother of the complainant declined him to pay money, the appellant picked up a quarrel with her and thereafter, left the place after issuing threats of dire consequences. Thereafter, at around 2130 hrs., the complainant again received a phone call from his mother asking him to send a wire-man to her house for carrying out some repair work. When the complainant reached home at around 2200 hrs., he saw his mother lying on the ground dead in a pool of blood. When the complainant made necessary inquiry in the neighborhood, he came to know that the appellant herein had allegedly killed her mother. A complaint in connection with the above offence was lodged before Naroda Police Station vide I-C.R. No.247 of 2005. Necessary investigation was carried out and the accused was arrested. Ultimately, charge-sheet was filed against the appellant before the magisterial Court but, since the case was sessions triable, it was committed to the Sessions Court, Ahmedabad for adjudication on merits.

(3.) Mr. Ajaykumar Choksi learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the Court below has failed to appreciate that there are material omissions, contradictions and improvement in the testimony of witnesses. Therefore, the Court below ought to have given benefit of doubt to the appellant.