KANTIJI JAWANJI THAKOR Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant, original accused, was sentenced to inter alia life imprisonment for the offence punishable u/s.302 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, "the IPC") read with Section 34 of the IPC by impugned judgment and order dated 29.11.2006 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge & Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court No.5, Mehsana in Sessions Case No. 87/2006. He is, therefore, in appeal questioning the impugned judgment and order.

(2.) BASICALLY , the prosecution case rests upon the evidence of Vasantiben Babuji Thakore, who has been examined as PW5 at Exhibit33. She has come out with a case that she along with her brother, deceased Rajuji, had gone for shopping and the appellants, who were armed with deadly weapons like sickles and pipes, came there and started abusing the deceased. Thereafter, the appellants assaulted the deceased with the said deadly weapons. The deceased collapsed and later, she lodged the FIR. In the cross examination, she came out with a case that the incident in reference to her sister, who was married to one of the 04 accused, had occurred 15 years back. She also admitted that they doubted the appellant no.4 having killed their sister, who was, admittedly, found dead in open space. The appellant no.4 was tried for that alleged offence and was, ultimately, acquitted. The witness also admitted that all the appellants herein are brothers and the place of incident was densely populated with shops and commercial buildings. We have on record the Injury Certificate of appellant no.1 Kantilal (Exhibit49). In the said Certificate, the history of injuries on the person of appellant no.1 has been noted by the Doctor, which indicates that he was assaulted by the deceased by a kosh (crowbar). In this context, the witness was crossexamined at length specifically asking her as to whether she had seen appellant no.1 being assaulted by her brother Rajuji. It was also alleged that during the cross examination it was stated that deceased Rajuji was the aggressor and fetched the kosh from a nearby hardware shop and assaulted appellant no.1Kantilal. It was the case of the appellants that except the two appellants, others were not present at the scene of offence.

(3.) VEHEMENTLY opposing the case put up by the appellants, learned APP Mr. Nanavati supported the decision rendered by the Court below and submitted that strong reasons have been recorded by the Court below in support of the conviction of the appellants.