PRASHANT RAJARAM BOLKE Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AGGRIEVED by judgment and order dated 27th December, 1. 2005, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Vyara finding the accusedappellant Prashant Rajaram Bolke guilty for the offence punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to life imprisonment with additional sentence and fine in the sum of Rs.500/, and in default additional one year R.I., as also finding the appellantaccused guilty for the offence under Section 364 of Indian Penal Code and sentencing him for a R.I. for 10 years and fine of Rs.500/, and in default an additional sentence of one year as also R.I. for three years and fine of Rs.250/, and in default additional sentence of three months for the offence punishable under Section 201 of Indian Penal Code, the appellant accused is before this Court in appeal. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently and the period undergone by accused was ordered to be setoff.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated the prosecution case was that on 18.9.2004 one Aniket, son of complainant Ghodiram Eknath Chauhan, aged 7 years, a student of first standard, was abducted and subsequently immediately, on the next day his dead body was found. Therefore an FIR came to be lodged at Exh.19 by said Ghodiram, P.W.2, who is a goldsmith. It was stated that, as per daily routine, Aniket came to his shop at 5:00 p.m. at Pakija Shopping Center, Bardoli and left for home alone at 7:00 p.m. It was further stated that, after the complainant reached home at about 10:00 o'clock in the night, he found the minor missing, and on inquiry from his wife, he learnt of his having not returned after leaving the home at 5:00 o'clock. The complainant therefore enquired from his relatives, friends and neighbours but failed to locate his son despite his efforts for whole of the night. It was further stated in the complaint that they could locate the dead body of the Aniket at the instance of Sarpanch Bachubhai. It was learnt by them that a dead body was lying in the field of of Mehndi. They went there and the complainant identified it as that of his son Aniket, who was lying there naked, with only one under garment and had incised wounds on his neck and foam was oozing out from his mouth. The complainant pleaded ignorance about the abductor and the assailant of his son in the complaint and did not suspect anyone.

(3.) FROM the crossexamination of P.W.1, it is also borne out that the accused had helped the complainant all throughout the night from 12:00 a.m. till 4:00 a.m. for locating the deceased. It was thus urged by learned counsel for the appellant that this was sufficient mitigating circumstance to rule in favour of innocence of the accused. In the crossexamination of the complainant, it is further borne out that he gave up the story of accused demanding ransom from him, and it was urged by learned counsel for the appellant that the complainant was not coming out with true facts and thus he had questionable credibility.