HARISHSINH Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant appeal is directed against the judgment and order dtd. 10/12/2015 passed by 3rd Additional Sessions Judge Panchmahal at Godhra in Sessions Case No.42 of 2013, wherein and whereby the appellant accused has been convicted for the offence punishable under Sec. 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, "the IPC"?) and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and fine of Rs.5,000.00 is also imposed, in default, simple imprisonment of one year. He is also sentenced to undergo for six months imprisonment for the offence punishable under Sec. 323 of the IPC and fine of Rs.500.00 is also imposed, in default, simple imprisonment of one year.

(2.) The case of the prosecution as per the charge at Exh. 2 is that on 10/1/2013 at 13.00 hours, when the first informant, PW-1 was returning from his farm, he saw PW-11, Somabhai Andarsinh Parmar, who was going with the tractor filled with concrete and at that time, the accused was walking in the middle of the road and the said witness asked him to walk on the side of the road, due to which he got irritated and started abusing. At that time, the first informant was going from his field towards his home on his cycle with a spade affixed on its back side. It is further alleged that the complainant asked the accused not to quarrel with the witness and the accused pulled the spade from his cycle and then the first informant asked to return the spade, at that time he inflicted blow of spade on his hand and when the deceased - Hasmukhbhai Patel, who was going on his motorcycle from his field, warned not to quarrel, at that time the accused inflicted blow of spade on his head as well as on the face below left eye, which resulted into serious injuries and ultimately he succumbed to such injuries. The accused was charged for the offence punishable under Ss. 302, 323 and 504 of the IPC as well as under Sec. 135 of the Gujarat Police Act.

(3.) The trial Court examined various witnesses and also after placing reliance on the documentary evidence has convicted the appellant as mentioned hereinabove for the offences for which he was charged.