MANSUKHBHAI MAVJIBHAI RATHOD Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Additional Sessions , FTC No.4, Bhavnagar campt at Botad in Sessions Case No. 167 of 2006 dated 24.10.2007, by which, the learned Sessions Court has convicted the appellant hereinoriginal accused for the offences under Sections 302 and 447 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act and has imposed the sentence of life imprisonment with fine of Rs.250/ and in default to undergo 15 days S.I for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and to undergo one month R.I with fine of Rs.100/ and in default to undergo 10 days S.I and to undergo one month R.I for the offence under Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act, the appellant herein original accused has preferred present Criminal Appeal.

(2.) That an FIR came to be lodged with the Gadhada Police Station being CRI28 of 2006 lodged by the original complainant Maheshbhai Ambabhai son of the deceased Ambabhai on 1.3.2006 at about 3 p.m. for the offences punishable under Sections 307 and 447 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act for the offences alleged to have been happened between night hours on 26/27.2.2006 alleging inter alia that his father Ambabhai was on his agricultural field on 26.2.2006 and during the night hours some unknown persons have beaten his father by giving blow on his head. It was alleged in the FIR that on 28.2.2006 in the morning when he was at his place his cousin informed him that his father has been seriously injured by some unknown persons and he has sustained injury on head and is bleeding. It was further alleged in the FIR that thereafter he immediately went his house, his father was lying in the bullock cart in the bleeding condition. It was further alleged in the FIR that immediately thereafter deceased was taken to hospital of Dr. D.J. Shah and before that he was taken to government hospital for primary treatment. Therefore, it was alleged that the some unknown persons have committed the offence under Section 307 and 447 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act. That after a period of 7 days, the deceased succumbed to the injury and died and therefore, the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code came to be added. That after a period of almost two months of the incident i.e. on 29.4.2006 the accused Manshukhbhai Mavjibhai Rathod came to be arrested. He was taken on one day remand. That an FIR was investigated by Police Sub Inspector, Gadhada Shri Chandubhai Nanalal Huda. He prepared the panchnama of place of incident and recorded the statement of the concerned persons. He also prepared the inquest panchnama and sent the dead body for postmortem to the Doctor. That on the basis of information gathered from the informant, he arrested the accused Manshukhbhai Mavjibhai Rathod on the information that the accused used to move frequently in the area. He was prepared the discovery panchnama of weapon / wood used by having bloodstain and he sent same to the FSL. He was recorded the statement of other persons before whom the accused Manshukhbhai Mavjibhai Rathod as alleged to have been committed the offence. That after completion of the investigation, the Investigating Officer filed charge sheet against the accused for the offences under Sections 302 and 447 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act. That the learned trial Court commit the case to the learned Sessions Court, Bhavnagar. That the learned Sessions Court framed the charge against the accused at Exh.6 for the aforesaid offences. That the accused did not plead guilty and therefore, he came to be tried for the offences under Sections 302 and 447 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act.

(3.) At this stage, it is required to be noted that initially appeal was preferred by Shri Sunil Mehta, learned advocate for the appellant. However, he has joined the judiciary and therefore, we requested Shri Rakshit Dholakia, learned advocate to assist the Court and therefore, Shri Dholakia, learned advocate has appeared on behalf of the accused and has assisted the Court. Ms. Nisha Thakore, learned Additional Public Prosecutor has appeared on behalf of the respondent State.