JASHWANTKUMAR @ JASHIO RAMESHBHAI SOLANKI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant-ori. Accused has preferred this appeal under sec. 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 25.7.2006 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Court no. 7, Ahmedabad City in Sessions Case No. 126/2005, whereby, the learned trial Judge has convicted the appellants- ori. Accused under sec. 302 of IPC and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default, to undergo S/I for one month, which is impugned in this appeal.

(2.) 1 The case of the prosecution is that on 21.8.2004, early in the morning, the complainant was on duty as a security guard with other watchmen, at Kalupur Kabutarkahna Market. He is serving as watchman since last 20 years with other watchmen. His main watchman is Sukhdevprasad. He was on duty in Sindhi market at ground floor on that day and deceased Kallu Sunder Yadav was on duty on second floor in the same market. Complainant further said that at 1.00a.m., one truck had come for unloading the goods and after unloading the truck, driver of the said truck asked watchman Kallu what is the time, then, Kallu told him that time was about 2.00a.m. and went on round at second floor on his duty point. Complainant also said that after some time, Kallu Yadav called the complainant with shouting that Rameshbhai come upward because he had caught a thief and that thief was Jashio Sweeper. Therefore, complainant called other watchmen for helping Kallu Yadav and he himself stood on main gate. Thereafter, complainant also said that watchman Lallubhai Keshavbhai told that Kallu Yadav was laying on the floor in a dead condition and there was bleeding in the gallery of the shop on second floor. After that, they inquired about Jashio Sweeper but unfortunately, Jashio ran away from there. After that, complainant and other watchmen went on second floor where there was watchman Kallu Yadav was laying there and they also found that the lock of the shop was broken. Therefore, a complaint was lodged.

(3.) Thereafter, after examining the witnesses, further statement of the appellant-accused under sec. 313 of CrPC was recorded in which the appellant-accused has denied the case of the prosecution.