BABJIBHAI RAMABHAI VADHALI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present appeal, under section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is directed against the judgement and order dated 31.08.2006 passed by the Sessions Judge, Valsad in Sessions Case No. 12 of 2006 whereby the accused- appellant has been convicted of the offence under sections 302, 452 and 37(1) of Indian Penal Code read with section 135 of B.P. Act and is inter alia sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life and is ordered to pay fine of Rs. 200/-, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for eight days for offence under section 302 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for five years and is ordered to pay fine of Rs. 200/-, in default, simple imprisonment for eight days for offence under section 452 of Indian Penal Code and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four months and fine of Rs. 100/-, in default, simple imprisonment for four days for offence under section 37(1) of Indian Penal Code read with section 135 of B.P. Act.

(2.) A complaint was lodged by P.W. 2 who is the son of deceased that on 27.11.2005 at around 07.00 pm while the complainant was standing near a tobacco hand-cart (lari), his elder paternal uncle's son came and informed him that his father was attacked by one Bapji Rama by way of axe behind his head, right hand and left hand. It is further stated in the complaint that hearing this the complainant rushed to his father's house and saw his father lying dead. He was informed by the son of his elder paternal uncle ­ Narsai that at around 06.30 pm while the deceased ­ Devlabhai Nayak was at his house having dinner, the accused came there with an axe and inflicted blows on the neck, forearm of right hand and fingers of left hand thereby causing his death. It is further stated in the complaint that accused committed the offence as he suspected the deceased to be in an illicit relation with the wife of the accused.

(3.) MR . L.R. Pujari, learned APP has supported the impugned judgement and order passed by the trial court and submitted that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. He has submitted that the trial court has given cogent reasons for sustaining the conviction and this court may not interfere in this appeal.