KETAN HASMUKHBHAI SONI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) At the out set, it is to be noted that the accused was not granted bail by this Court when the appeal came to be admitted. However, when temporary bail was granted to him, he has not surrendered back to the jail authority, and in light of the judgment of this court, this matter is taken up for final hearing.

(2.) The present appellant has preferred this appeal under sec. 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 13.9.2010 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, F.T.C. No.

(3.) , Vadodara in Sessions Case No. 133/2008, whereby, the learned trial Judge has convicted the appellant under sec. 302 of Indian Penal code (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC') and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 25,000/, in default, to undergo further R/I for one year. The appellant is also convicted under sec. 201 IPC and sentenced to undergo R/I for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/ -, in default, to undergo further R/I for three months. The appellant is further convicted under section 471 of IPC and sentenced to undergo R/I for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/ -, in default, to undergo further R/I for three months. The appellant is also convicted under section 135 of the B.P. Act and sentenced to undergo R/I for a period of one month and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/ -, in default, to undergo R/I for ten days, which is impugned in this appeal. 2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are as under: 2.1 That as per complaint of the complainant, on 12.1.2008, at about 5.00p.m., his son Miten had left the home informing his mother to come back after telephoning his friend. However, since he had not returned back till late night, the members of his family repeatedly tried to contact him on his mobile No. 9328237884 but there was no reply. Therefore, they have enquired from his friend circle and relatives, but no news of Miten was received till late night. On 13.1.2008, at about 9.15p.m., they had given information to Gorva Police Station. Thereafter also, when the complainant had been going for searching his son, at that time, the person residing in House No. C - 32 of his society, telephonically informed that the son of the complainant has been murdered and his dead -body is lying near the wall opposite Choksi Petrol Pump, and therefore, he has gone on the site and showed the dead -body to the police. They identified it to be that of their son. Therefore a complaint was given declaring that they have no any suspicion as to who, when and for which reason committed the murder of Miten. 2.2 Therefore, during the course of investigation, it is found that Ketan Hasmukhbhai Soni, the present appellant had got registered marriage with the elder sister Harshal because they were in love. Since the deceased was having information that the present appellant had illicit relation with two girls and thereby deceased was lack -mailing the present appellant and had taken Rs. 2 lacs from the present appellant. The marriage of appellant with the sister of deceased has been fixed, and therefore, the appellant had demanded the money from the deceased but deceased was not returning the amount. Thereafter, the deceased Miten had called present appellant -accused at House No. 34, in Vimleshwar Society, Subhanpura for giving him the amount where there had been hot exchange of words and scuffle. At that time, appellant accused having been excited, had given two blows of iron pipe on the head of Miten, and committed his murder and tried to destroy the evidence by throwing the dead -body of the deceased near the compound wall behind Sai Nasta House, Near Subhanpura Bus -stand. That after completion of the investigation, charge -sheet was filed in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vadodara. Thereafter, as the case was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the learned Magistrate has committed the case to the Court of Sessions, which was given number as Sessions Case No. 133/2010. 3. Thereafter, the charge was framed at Ex. 5 against the appellant. The appellant ­ accused has pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.