MOVAR JUSABBHAI BHOJABHAI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present appeals have been filed by the appellants -accused against the judgment and order dated 17.07.2010 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Surendranagar in Sessions Case No.8 of 2009. By the said judgment, appellant of Criminal Appeal No.1558 of 2010, i.e. accused no.1 was convicted for offence under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and ordered to undergo ten years rigorous imprisonment and pay fine of Rs.10,000/ - and in default, he was ordered to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two years and for offence under Section 366, he was ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years and pay fine of Rs.2,000/ - and in default, he was ordered to undergo two months simple imprisonment, and for offence under Section 506 (2) of IPC he was ordered to undergo one year's rigorous imprisonment and pay fine of Rs.1,000/ - and in default, he was ordered to undergo one month's simple imprisonment. The appellant of Criminal Appeal No.1368 of 2010, i.e. accused no.2 was convicted for offence under Section 376 read with Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code and ordered to undergo seven years rigorous imprisonment and pay fine of Rs.5,000/ - and in default, he was ordered to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and for offence under Section 366, he was ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and pay fine of Rs.2,000/ - and in default, he was ordered to undergo two months simple imprisonment, and for offence under Section 506 (2) of IPC he was ordered to undergo one year's rigorous imprisonment and pay fine of Rs.1,000/ - and in default, he was ordered to undergo one month's simple imprisonment. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

(2.) THE case of the prosecution in short is that: -

(3.) MR .Ashish Dagli, learned advocate for the appellants submitted that had the learned trial Judge gone through decisions of the Apex Court he would not have convicted the accused. It is submitted that the learned trial Judge has not properly appreciated the documentary as well as oral evidence on record. He submitted that the learned Judge failed to consider the fact that the prosecution has not proved its case against the appellants beyond reasonable doubt and therefore, the appellants ought to have been acquitted from the charges levelled against them.