AMARSINH @ KABHAIBHAI BHAIJIBHAI PARMAR Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) As both the appeals arise from the common judgment and order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, they are being considered simultaneously.

(2.) The short facts of the case are that on 27.12.2008, the complaint was filed (exhibit 16) by the son of the deceased stating that his father Labhubhai Solanki (deceased), was having friendship with accused and the wife of the accused was accepted as sister by the deceased. Whenever he used to go for his business of scrap at Nadiad, he used to stay at the residence of the accused. On 27.07.2008, the deceased had left for the business to Nadiad with Rs.2 Lakhs and he had said that if he goes to Nadiad, he would stay at the residence of the accused, but if he goes to Vadodara, he would stay at guest house. Thereafter, upto 02.08.2008, the deceased had talked with the complainant on mobile, but after 04.08.2008, there was no talk on mobile and somebody else was talking on mobile. Therefore, on 08.08.2008, the reporting was made to the Paddhari police station. Again on 12.08.2008, reporting was made at Nadiad Rural Police Station that the deceased was missing and if found, the complainant be intimated. Nothing was found upto 16.08.2008 and thereafter, the complainant tried but no satisfactory reply was given to him by Amarsinh (A1) or Manjulaben (A2). On 26.12.2008, through Paddhari police station, it was learnt that the dead body of the deceased was found as hidden from the land of A1 and therefore, complainant and his relative went to the place and found that the dead body of the deceased was hidden/cremated nearby the badam tree and then the place was dug and it was found that a human skeleton of dead body was found. The complainant identified the dead body of the deceased in presence of the Mamlatdar. Thereafter, complaint was filed. The police investigated into the complaint and thereafter, chargesheet was filed against A1 and A2. The case was committed to the Sessions Court being Sessions Case No.49/09. The learned Sessions Judge framed the charges for the offence under section 302 r/w section 114 of the IPC and for the offence under section 201 r/w section 114 of the IPC. Thereafter, the trial was conducted.

(3.) The prosecution in order to prove the guilt of the accused examined 22 witnesses and produced documentary evidence of 40 documents, the details of the same are mentioned by the learned Sessions Judge at paras 5 and 6 respectively. The learned Sessions Judge thereafter, recorded the statement of both the accused under section 313 of the Cr.P.C. wherein, the accused denied the evidence against them and in the further statement, it was stated that a false case is filed against them and they are innocent.