LAWS(GJH)-2013-10-265

LAKHABHAI DHIRABHAI JHALA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

Decided On October 11, 2013
Lakhabhai Dhirabhai Jhala Appellant
V/S
STATE OF GUJARAT Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellants were interalia sentenced to life imprisonment and fine of Rs. 5000/ -, in default, simple imprisonment for one year by impugned judgement and order dated 30.09.2005 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Nadiad in Sessions Case No. 50 of 2001 for the offence punishable under section 302 r/w sections 120(B) and 114 of IPC. Being aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence, the appellants have preferred the present appeal.

(2.) AS per the prosecution case, on 27.10.2000, the deceased after having his dinner was at his house when the appellants came there on a scooter and asked the deceased to accompany them for visiting a fair. The deceased therefore went with them on the scooter. Thereafter, the appellants returned to the village but the deceased was not with them. When the appellants were asked about the whereabouts of the deceased, they pleaded ignorance and therefore a search was initiated to locate the deceased. The wife of the deceased also went to her parental house to see if the deceased had gone there but to no avail. In the meantime, they received information that the deceased s dead body was kept with Balasinor Government Hospital and therefore they went there and saw the deceased s dead body. The body bore injury marks. Shri Dhulabhai Sharma, ASI with Balasinor Police Station had received information that an unclaimed dead body was lying on Balasinor Virpur Road near Popatlal Shah s well and therefore he reached to the place and saw the body lying with an unclaimed scooter nearby. A complaint in this regard was registered.

(3.) MR . Pratik Barot, learned advocate appearing with Mr. Mansuri for the appellants submitted that there is nothing on record to establish that the accused are involved in this case except the complaint and the evidence of P.Ws. 3 and 4. He submitted that in absence of any eye witness in the present case, the trial court has erred in convicting the appellants on the basis of circumstantial evidence when the chain has not been completed by the prosecution. He has drawn the attention of this Court to the post mortem report and submitted that from the same it is clear that the deceased had died an accidental death. He submitted that the appellants deserve to be granted benefit of doubt as there is no clear evidence against them. Mr. Barot has relied upon a decision of the Apex Court in the case of Pohalya Motya Valvi V/s. State of Maharashtra, 1980 1 SCC 530 and submitted that each circumstance relied upon by the prosecution must be established by cogent, succinct and reliable evidence and that the circumstance must be of an incriminating character.