DIPAKBHAI SHANKERJI THAKORE Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PRESENT appeals assail the judgment and order dated 04/07/2011 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, City Civil and Sessions Court, Ahmedabad City in Sessions Case No. 384 of 2009, whereby, the learned Sessions Judge was pleased to convict original accused No. 2 - Dipakbhai Shankarji Thakor, the appellant of Criminal Appeal No. 1096 of 2011 for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for brevity, 'the IPC') and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/ - and in default of payment of fine, to undergo, further simple imprisonment for 15 days. For the offence punishable under Section 449 of the IPC, he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment of one year and a fine of Rs. 500/ - and in default of payment of fine, to undergo, further simple imprisonment for 15 days. Original accused No. 3 - Bhupat @ Bhopo Shankarji Thakor, the respondent No. 1 in Criminal Appeal No. 1196 of 2011, was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 326 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and a fine of Rs. 500/ - and in default of payment of fine, to undergo, further simple imprisonment for 15 days. He was also convicted for the offence punishable under Section 450 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and a fine of Rs. 500/ - and in default of payment of fine, to undergo, further simple imprisonment for 15 days. Original accused No. 4 - Pravinaben @ Chaku Dipakbhai Shankarji Thakor, the respondent No. 2 in Criminal Appeal No. 1196 of 2011 and original accused No. 5 - Bhavnaben Bhupatbhai Thakor, were convicted for the offence punishable under Section 323 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months and a fine of Rs. 500/ - each and in default of payment of fine, to undergo, further simple imprisonment for 15 days. They were also convicted for the offence punishable under Section 452 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months and a fine of Rs. 500/ - each and in default of payment of fine, to undergo, further simple imprisonment for 15 days. The original accused Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 5 were also convicted for the offence punishable under Section 135(1) of the Bombay Police Act and sentenced to undergo, rigorous imprisonment for seven days and a fine of Rs. 100/ - each and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further simple imprisonment of three days. Moreover, the learned trial Judge was pleased to enlarge the original accused Nos. 4 and 5 on probation of good conduct on their furnishing person bond of Rs. 5,000/ - each and surety of the like amount for one year. Hence, the Criminal Appeal No. 1096 of 2011 has been filed by the original accused No. 2 - Dipakbhai Shankarji Thakor against conviction, whereas, the Criminal Appeal Nos. 1192 of 2011 and 1196 of 2011 have been filed by the State against acquittal of original accused No. 1 and for enhancement of sentence of original accused Nos. 3 and 4, respectively.

(2.) THE prosecution case in nutshell is that on 15/11/2008 at about 12:15 p.m., accused No. 1 - Shankarji Ramaji Thakor and others, with a view to take revenge of a decree which had been passed in favour of the deceased - Mukeshbhai and the same had been executed by him against the accused, they assaulted the deceased with deadly weapons like Gupti, sticks, bat and thereby, committed murder for which, a complaint came to be lodged with the Kagdapith Police Station, Ahmedabad for the offence punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 149, 452, 449, 452, 302 r/w. Section 120 -B, 34 and 114 of the IPC and Section 135(1) of the Bombay Police Act.

(3.) WE have gone through the evidence on record, more particularly, the evidence of the person who was residing nearby the place of incident viz. PW -6 - Pravinbhai Chandubhai Patel, who had informed the police by making a call from his mobile phone and accordingly, the police had reached the spot. However, he has categorically stated in his deposition that he was not knowing the deceased and on the day of incident in the evening he came to know that the deceased was a builder and afterwards, on next day, he came to know about the name of the deceased from the newspaper and except that, he was not knowing anything and since, he was not knowing anything, he was examined to the extent of his informing the police.