LAWS(GJH)-2023-6-2082

MANOJ Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

Decided On June 06, 2023
MANOJ Appellant
V/S
STATE OF GUJARAT Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal presented under Sec. 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short "the Cr.P.C.") emanates from the judgement and order of conviction dtd. 17/10/2013 passed by the learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Veraval, Junagadh in Sessions Case No.44 of 2008 convicting the accusedappellant for life under Sec. 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and fine of Rs.10,000.00 and in default of payment of fine, three years of simple imprisonment. Over and above the same, simple imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs.500.00 in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three months for the offence punishable under Sec. 323 of the IPC and simple imprisonment of three years and fine of Rs.2,000.00 for the offence punishable under sec. 325 of the IPC and in default to undergo an additional simple imprisonment for six months has been imposed.

(2.) The prosecution stems out from the F.I.R. registered by Kanjibhai Khimabhai Vegad i.e. father of the deceased on 20/5/2008 for the offences punishable under Ss. 302, 323 and 325 of the IPC.

(3.) Learned advocate Mr.Majmudar appearing for the accused-appellant has submitted that the conviction is based upon the sole evidence of FSL report, which shows that on a shirt of the accused-appellant, blood of the deceased was found. It is submitted that there is no eye witness of the occurrence and chain of events is also not complete in the present case. While inviting attention of this Court to the arrest panchnama below Exh.50, he has submitted that in the arrest panchnama of the accused-appellant, it is specifically observed that after a through examination of the shirt of the accused, no blood stains were found. While referring to the description of muddamal articles in dispatch register which are sent to FSL, it is submitted that the same also does not indicate of having any blood stains on the shirt of the accusedappellant and hence, conviction cannot be based on the circumstantial evidence that too on the basis of such panchnama and report.