SACHINBHAI HASMUKHBHAI PATEL Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Criminal Appeal No.1067 of 2006 by accused No.2 and 8, and Criminal Appeal No.1142 of 2006 by accused No.5, of Sessions Case No.23 of 2006 (Old Sessions Case No.108 of 2005), challenges the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dtd. 29/5/2006 by the learned 1st Fast Track Court, Anand, where the trial was conducted against nine accused, while accused No.1, 2, 5 and 8 came to be convicted under Sec. 143 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) with one month rigorous imprisonment and Rs.100.00 fine and in default of payment of fine, seven days simple imprisonment, under Sec. 147 of the IPC, six months rigorous imprisonment and Rs.100.00 fine with default stipulation of seven days simple imprisonment and for the offences punishable under Sec. 436, read with Sec. 149 of the IPC, sentenced to five years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.500.00 and in default, one month simple imprisonment.

(2.) The charge below Exhibit 17 notes that all the nine accused and the persons in the crowd, because of the incident in regard to Ayodhya issue, on 1/3/2002 between 14.00 to 23.00 hours at Anand Lotia Bagod, gathered in concert, for prosecution of common object formed unlawful assembly and being the member of unlawful assembly committed offence punishable under Sec. 143 of the IPC.

(3.) Learned advocate Mr. Vijay Patel for the appellants of Criminal Appeal 1067 of 2006, also appearing for learned advocate Mr. Chirag Upadhyay in Criminal Appeal No.1142 of 2006, submitted that the conviction of the appellants is absolutely illegal and contrary to law and evidence on record. Learned advocate Mr. Vijay Patel contended that the conviction is contrary to the principles of criminal jurisprudence and thus, is liable to be quashed and set aside. It is further submitted that the learned Judge has not rightly appreciated the documentary and oral evidence on record for convicting the appellants. It is contended that no panch witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution, nor there are independent witnesses to the alleged offence, and further, stated that the Investigating Agency has failed to conduct Test Identification Parade (TIP), and in absence of TIP, the dock identification of the accused persons by the witnesses would become highly doubtful, more so, when none has been named in the FIR.