DINESH Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been filed by the appellant under Sec. 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the judgement and order of conviction dtd. 10/3/2014 passed by the learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Surat (hereinafter referred to as the 'learned Trial Court') in Sessions Case No. 249 of 2012. The appellant was put on trial for the offence punishable under Sec. 302 of the Indian Penal Code and was convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment (rigorous imprisonment) and fine of Rs.10,000.00 (Rs.Ten Thousand only) and in default, to simple imprisonment for three years for the offence under Ss. 302 of the IPC. The appellant is referred to as the accused as he stood in the original case for the sake of convenience, clarity and brevity.

(2.) FACTUAL MATRIX

(3.) Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgement and order of conviction, the appellant has filed the present appeal mainly stating that the learned Trial Court has committed a substantial error in appreciating the evidence and has failed to appreciate that the prosecution has not proved the case beyond reasonable doubts. The learned Trial Court has failed to appreciate that the ligature marks that were found on the neck of the deceased would be available on the body if a person would commit suicide by hanging. The panch witnesses do not support the case of the prosecution and have turned hostile and even the neighbour of the deceased has not supported the case of the prosecution. In fact, the neighbour of the deceased has stated that she had no doubts about the relationship of the appellant with the deceased. From her deposition, there is no evidence that the appellant and the deceased were involved in any relationship and there is no evidence that the appellant is involved in the commission of the offence. That there are no eye witnesses to the incident, but the same is not appreciated properly by the learned Trial Court. Witness Veerusinh Prajapati has stated that the appellant had informed him early in the morning at around 4:30 AM on his mobile phone that the deceased was found dead hanging from the fan and the appellant had told him that when he went to answer natures' call, he saw the deceased in such a situation and he took the body down. The learned Trial Court has not appreciated that this evidence does not implicate the involvement of the appellant in the offence. The motive, as per the case of the prosecution is that the appellant had come to the room in a drunken condition and the deceased had given him two slaps and told him not to come in a drunken condition to the room and for this reason, the applicant was angry and has committed the offence but there is no evidence to corroborate the say of the prosecution to this effect. That no motive is established and there is no person who has seen the appellant with the deceased on the date of the incident and the prosecution has not proved the case beyond reasonable doubts, and hence the impugned judgement and order must be quashed and set aside.