CHEHRABHAI JESUNGBHAI GOL PATEL Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AS all the appeals arise from the common judgement and order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, they are being considered simultaneously.

(2.) ALL the appeals are preferred against the judgement and order passed by the learned Sessions Judge for conviction and sentence of the respective appellants for the offence under Section 302 read with Section 120B of IPC and for the conviction and sentence for the offence under Section 201 read with Section 120B of IPC. For the sake of convenience, Accused Nos.1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 are referred to as "A -1, A -2, A -3, A -4, and A -5" for short.

(3.) THE short facts of the case are that a complaint was filed by Chehrabhai Jesungbhai Gol Patel - Accused No.1 (A -1) with Gadh Police Station on 8.8.2007, stating that his nephew Devjibhai Narsangbhai @ Devabhai (deceased), who is disabled by both the legs, was living with him and was looking after the agricultural work and for his movement, he had kept four -wheeler scooter. On 7.8.2007, when the complainant went to his type -class shop and came back at about 7.30 p.m., he found that his nephew (deceased) was not present at the well and when he inquired with his wife, he was told that the deceased had gone towards Kushkal in his scooter and the deceased did not come back for a long time, until late night. Thereafter, in the morning, the complainant was informed by his uncle's son Laxmanbhai on phone that the scooter of the deceased was lying on the side of the road, opposite to the agricultural field of Laxmanbhai and Devabhai was also lying there. The complainant went to the place and found that the scooter was lying of the deceased and nearby Devabhai (deceased) was lying in dead condition and it was observed that the blows were given with the sharp weapon on the neck and on the left hand and both the rear wheels were dismantled. It was stated in the complaint that there were no injuries of accident. The Police thereafter investigated into the complaint and initially no substantial material was found, but subsequently, when it was further inquired and investigated, it was found that the complainant was also involved in the commission of crime for causing death of the deceased. Thereafter the charge -sheet was filed against all the accused by the police. The learned Sessions Judge framed the charges and thereafter the trial was conducted. The prosecution, in order to prove the guilt of the accused, examined various witnesses and produced documentary evidences. The details of the witnesses as well as all the documentary evidences are recorded by the learned Sessions Judge are at page 5 of the judgement. The learned Sessions Judge thereafter recorded the statements of the accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., wherein all the accused denied the evidences against them and in the further statement, A -3 stated that a false case is filed against him. However, A -1 and A -2 as well as A -5 submitted written further statements at Exh.140 and Exh.141 respectively, wherein A -1 and A -2 stated that the deceased was brought up by them and nothing is recovered and A -2 has not shown the parts of coat and the panchnama is not prepared in presence of A -2 and Kantibhai (PW -3) (Exh.26) is not an independent witness and he has given false evidence. It was also stated by A -1 and A -2 that the place is not shown by Tinaji to the police and no weapon is recovered by the police or panchnama is not made and it was also stated that Ghemar (PW -7) (Exh.47) is also not an independent witness and the deceased was his nephew and, therefore, false evidence is given. It was also stated that A -1 and A -2 were not knowing A -5 and the information was given by A -1 to the police. In the further statement, A -5 stated that the false case is filed against him and he has not said for showing knife or mobile and nothing was recovered in presence of A -5, nor any panchnama was prepared in presence of A -5. It was also stated that A -5 was not knowing A -1 and A -2. The learned Sessions Judge thereafter heard the prosecution as well as defence and found that the prosecution has been able to prove the case for the offence under Section 302 read with Section 120B of IPC against A -1, A -2, A -3 and A -5 and the learned Sessions Judge also found that the prosecution has been able to prove the case for the offence under Section 201 read with Section 120B of IPC against A -1, A -2 and A -3, therefore, the learned Sessions Judge held the concerned accused guilty for the respective offences, but the learned Sessions Judge found that the prosecution has not been able to prove the case for the charged offences against A -4 and, therefore, acquitted A -4. The learned Sessions Judge thereafter heard the prosecution and defence for imposition of sentence and ultimately imposed sentence for the lifeimprisonment with the fine of Rs.1,000/ - and further one month S.I., for default in payment of fine upon A -1, A -2, A -3 and A -5 for the offence under Section 302 read with Section 120B of IPC. The learned Sessions Judge also imposed sentence upon A -1, A -2 and A -3 for seven years' R.I. with the fine of Rs.500/ - and further one month's S.I., for the default in payment of fine for the offence under Section 201 read with Section 120B of IPC. The learned Sessions Judge also directed for set off and the sentences to be undergone concurrently. It is under these circumstances, Criminal Appeal No.27/2010 has been preferred by Chehrabhai Jesungbhai Gol Patel (A -1) and Manguben (A -2), wife of Chehrabhai Jesungbhai Gol, Criminal Appeal No.167/2010 has been preferred by Bhuraji Chaturji Thakore (A -3) and Criminal Appeal No.292/2010 has been preferred by Abdul @ Rahemanbhai Ibrahimbhai Sheikh (A -5) against conviction and sentences.