ASHOKKUMAR @ PATTAR INDRAJITVASI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY way of present appeal, the appellant -original accused has challenged the judgement and order dated 27.6.2011 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, City Sessions Court, Ahmedabad, in Sessions Case No. 241 of 2010 whereby the present appellant was convicted under Sections 302 and 203 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life with fine of Rs. 5000/ - and in default of payment of fine, to suffer further imprisonment for six months for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. However, no separate sentence was awarded for the offence under Section 203 of the Indian Penal Code.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the prosecution case are that the accused and his wife Sima were staying at Jarivali Chali House No. 37 -2, Near Balia Limdi Char Rasta, Shahibaug. The accused was quarrelling with his wife deceased Sima for not getting up early and not preparing food for him and his brother and he was beating. On the day of the incident i.e. on 1.4.2010 the same thing happened and the accused had beaten deceased Sima severely and strangulated her. Because of strangulation, Sima succumbed to the injuries. Thereafter, the accused tried to establish the case that his wife Sima committed suicide. A complaint in this regard was filed. On the basis of the complaint, investigation was carried out. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed.

(3.) LEARNED advocate Ms. Meenu Kumar for the appellant has taken us through the evidence of the witnesses and other relevant materials. She has contended that the trial Court has not properly examined and appreciated the material and evidence placed on record while arriving at the conclusion. She further contended that the case is based on circumstantial evidence and the prosecution has failed to prove the case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. She further contended that prosecution witness Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 6 and 11 have turned hostile. In that view of the matter, the appellant deserves to be acquitted of the charges by giving benefit of doubt.