STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. MANOJKUMARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BOTH these Criminal Appeals are preferred against judgment and order dated 26.2.2009 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Vadodara in Sessions Case No. 87 of 2008. By the said judgment, accused No. 1 was convicted for offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, while accused No. 2 was acquitted of the charges levelled against her. For offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC, accused No. 1 was ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and ordered to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/ - and in default, simple imprisonment for 15 days was imposed; for offence punishable under Section 201 of IPC, one years' rigorous imprisonment was awarded with fine of Rs. 500/ - and in default, he was ordered to undergo further simple imprisonment for ten days. Being aggrieved by the impugned judgment, accused No. 1 has preferred Criminal Appeal No. 1553 of 2009, while Criminal Appeal No. 918 of 2009 is preferred by the State against acquittal of accused No. 2.

(2.) AS these appeals are arising out of the same judgment rendered in connection with the same incident and the evidence is also common in all these appeals, the same are taken up for hearing together.

(3.) MR . Ramnandan Singh, learned advocate for accused No. 1, appellant of Criminal Appeal No. 1553 of 2009 has taken us through the evidence and submitted that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case against the appellant. It is also submitted that the prosecution has not proved the chain of circumstances and as this is a case based on circumstantial evidence, the trial Court has committed an error in convicting the accused for offence punishable under Section 302 and Section 201 of IPC. It is submitted that even the majority of the panchas have not supported the case of the prosecution. He also submitted that the evidence on record is not sufficient to convict accused No. 1 for offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC, therefore, benefit of doubt should have been given to him. He also submitted that when the trial Court has acquitted accused No. 2 by granting benefit of doubt to her, accused No. 1 also should have been acquitted. He also submitted that there was no eye witness to the incident, therefore also the learned trial Judge committed an error in convicting the accused. He also contended that there is no cogent or reliable evidence to convict accused no. 1. In support of his submissions, Mr. Singh has relied upon the following decisions of the Supreme Court.