MAHESHBHAI RAMABHAI VAGHERI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present conviction Appeal has been filed by the appellant original accused, under Section 374 of the Cr. P.C., against the Judgment and order dated 23.12.2009 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.2, Patan in Sessions Case No.23 of 2009, whereby the appellant -accused was convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 394 and 397 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo 7 years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.1000/ -for the offence punishable under Section -394 of IPC, in default of payment of fine, further simple imprisonment of 4 months. The appellant -accused was acquitted for the offence punishable under Section135 of the Bombay Police Act.

(2.) ACCORDING to the prosecution case, complainantRameshbhai Varvabhai Raval, resident of village Hardeshan Taluka and District: Mehsana was earning his livelihood by running camel cart. On 21.11.2008, he went to collect the grass of one Chaudhari Mahadevbhai Vaghjibhai, resident of same village and after unloading the same, while he was returning, one person -appellantaccused herein came to him and told that he purchased one lorry at village Mitha Dharwa and wanted to take the camel cart of the complainant on rent for taking the possession of the said lorry. Further, before three to four days, the appellant -accused came to his house and took meal together, at that time, the said person told the complainant that he was resident of Gerita and residing at Kukarwada. At that time, the complainant did not ask his name. Thereafter, they went to village Mitha Dharva via Motap, Gambhu and Chaveli. Before 1 k.m. away from Mota Dharwa, the appellant -accused told the complainant to take the forage for camel. Then, the complainant went to take forage for the camel from the Neem Tree. Thereafter, somehow, the appellant -accused started beating the complainant with sticks and gave stick blows on the forehead of the complainant. Due to this blow, the complainant became unconscious. When the complainant became conscious, he found that the appellant -accused looted his camel and camel cart as well as Rs.3000/ -from his pocket. Thereafter, the complainant tried to reach Mitha Dharva and his uncle Raval Haribhai Madhabhai took him to village Hardesan and thereafter, he was shifted to hospital, where he lodged the complaint, which was registered as I -C.R.No.207 of 2008 before the Chansma Police Station. Then, investigation was carried out and panchnama of place was drawn. Statements of the witnesses were recorded and after collecting the information of accused by the police, he was arrested. Then, in presence of panchas, physical condition of the appellant -accused is drawn. Stolen property which was looted by the appellant -accused was recovered from the possession of the appellant -accused. Then discovery panchnama was drawn and weapon knife was also discovered and police obtained medical certificate from the hospital. During the investigation, it was found that offence under Section -397 was also committed by the appellant -accused, the said section was added and charge -sheet was filed by the Investigating Officer against the appellant -accused for the offence punishable under Sections -394 and 397 of the IPC and under Section -135 of the Bombay Police Act before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Chansama, which was numbered as Criminal Case No.55 of 2009. As the said case was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Chansma, committed the case to learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.2, Patan, which was thereafter, numbered as Sessions Case No.23 of 2009.

(3.) ON the basis of above allegations, charge was framed against the appellant -accused vide Exh.6 and read -over and explained to the appellant -accused for the offences punishable under Sections Sections -394 and 397 of the IPC and under Section -135 of the Bombay Police Act. Then plea at Exh.7 was recorded, wherein, appellantaccused pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed to be tried.