THAKOR GANDAJI JAWANJI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPELLANTS are original accused Nos. 1 and 2 in Sessions Case No. 41 of 2009. They were convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 302, 323, 325 and 367 read with Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mehsana. Under Section 367 read with Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code the accused persons were sentenced to R.I. of 05 years and fine of Rs. 2,500/ - each and in default of payment of fine, they were sentenced to S.I. for 01 year. Under Section 302 read with Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code, they were sentenced life imprisonment and fine of Rs. 1,000/ - and in default of payment of fine, they were sentenced to S.I. of 01 year. No separate sentence was imposed upon them for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 325 read with Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code. The sentence imposed upon the appellants -accused was directed to be undergone simultaneously. The complainant Rajuji Karshanji Thakor is residing with his family at Village: Kuda, taluka: Kharalu, Dist. Mehsana and doing labour work. He is father of two sons and one daughter. On 4.1.2009, the complainant and his friend Dasharathji Laxmanji went to Village: Shahpur and while returning to Kuda Village, Thakor Gandaji Javanji Talaji, native of Shahpur, who cultivates land of Chaudhary Abhabhai Laljibhai on the outskirts of Unad village and resides in hut in the field, and Thakor Jujarji Parbatji, who also lives on the outskirts of Unad village, came to Kuda village with tractor at about 6:30 p.m. in the evening, and after catching hold of the complainant, they started saying that, he has tried to outrage modesty of their daughter. They made him to sit in the tractor and brought in the outskirts of Unad village, and he was given blows of sticks on the legs and was left there on the road after the assault. Thereafter, as 108 mobile van came, he was brought to Vadnagar Government Hospital, where he was admitted in the hospital. During treatments the doctor told that he had fracture on the right leg; injury was also sustained on his left hand.

(2.) THE aforesaid complaint was investigated by the police and charge -sheet was filed against the accused. The charge was framed at Ex. 5. The case was committed to the Sessions Court being Sessions Case No. 41 of 2009. The prosecution in order to prove the guilt of the accused examined 17 witnesses, and the details whereof are recorded by the learned Sessions Judge at para -4 of the impugned judgment. The prosecution also produced documentary evidence of 28 documents, the details of which are mentioned by the learned Sessions Judge at para -4 in the impugned judgment.

(3.) THE prosecution examined various prosecution witnesses, evidence of whom may be summarised thus: -