RAMANBHAI MANSUKHBHAI TADAVI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BOTH these appeals are heard together and are disposed of by this common judgment as those arise from a common judgment passed by the learned Sessions Judge. The accused No. 2 and 3 of Sessions Case No. 130 of 2003 have filed these appeals respectively against the order of conviction and the consequent sentence dated 7th October 2003 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 3, Vadodara, whereby the learned Sessions Judge found both the appellants guilty of the offence punishable under section 302 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to life imprisonment and further to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/ - each with a further stipulation that in default of payment of fine, they would undergo further simple imprisonment for 30 days. By the said judgment, the learned Sessions Judge, however, acquitted the accused No. 1 of the offence punishable under section 302 read with section 34 of the Act.

(2.) THE translated version of the charge reads as under:

(3.) MR . Pratik Barot, the learned advocate for the appellants, laboriously contended before us that the learned Sessions Judge committed substantial error of law in convicting the two appellants on the basis of evidence adduced by the widow of the victim who was the most interested witness. According to Mr. Barot, there being enmity between the accused persons and the deceased, in the facts of the present case, the learned Sessions Judge should not have relied upon the statement of the widow of the victim. Mr. Barot further contends that it would appear from the evidence adduced by other prosecution witnesses, viz. PW. No. 8 to 11 and PW No. 13 and 14, who claim to be eyewitnesses, that they arrived at the spot of occurrence after the incident, and, therefore, they have merely reiterated the version of the PW. No. 7.