IMRAIL Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been filed by the appellants under Sec. 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the judgement and order dtd. 3/11/2018 passed by the learned 6th Additional (Adhoc) Sessions Judge, Panchmahals @ Godhra (hereinafter referred to as the 'learned Trial Court' ) in Sessions Case No. 36 of 2017. The appellants were put on trial for the offence punishable under Ss. 504, 324, 326, 302 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code and Sec. 135 of the Gujarat Police Act and were convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment (simple imprisonment) and fine of Rs.5000.00 (Rs.Five Thousand only) and in default, simple imprisonment for ten days for the offence under Sec. 302 and 114 of the IPC and to simple imprisonment for three years for the offence under Ss. 324, 326, 114 of the IPC. The learned Trial Court was pleased to give benefit of doubt to both the appellants for the offences under Ss. 504 and 114 of the IPC and Sec. 135 of the Gujarat Police Act and further ordered both the sentences to run concurrently and the period of detention of the appellants was to be given as a set off against the sentence.

(2.) FACTUAL MATRIX

(3.) Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgement and order of conviction, the appellants have filed the present appeal mainly stating that the learned Trial Court has failed to appreciate that the prosecution has not proved the case beyond reasonable doubts and the learned Trial Court ought to have appreciated that the case is of culpable homicide not amounting to murder. The defence of the appellants is that they are falsely implicated in a serious offence of murder and the prosecution has not produced any legal, reliable, and unimpeachable evidence to support the original genesis of occurrence as the incident in question has taken place. That the learned Trial Court has drawn inferences against the defence and in favour of the prosecution and the learned Trial Court has failed to appreciate that the prosecution has failed to prove the recovery panchnama and also the panchnama of the place of incident. The learned Trial Court has grossly erred and misread and misconstrued the intention of the appellants and has not seen the facts of the case and there was no evidence of murder. Most of the witnesses have turned hostile and the impugned judgement and order is erroneous, bad in law and is required to be quashed and set aside.