MAFABHAI AMBALAL PATEL Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Present appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 29/06/2002, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Mahesana, in Sessions Case No. 124 of 1999, whereby, the accused therein came to be convicted for the offence punishable under Section 307 r/w. 114 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for brevity, 'the IPC') and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment (RI) for five years and a fine of Rs.500/ each and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further RI for two months. The accused were also convicted for the offence punishable under Section 506(2) r/w. 114 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for six months and a fine of Rs.250/ each and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further RI for fifteen days. The accused were also convicted for the offence punishable under Section 326 of the IPC, however, no separate sentence was imposed for the same. The sentences were to run concurrently. Accordingly, the present appeal has been filed by the appellant original accused No. 2 against conviction.

(2.) Brief facts of the prosecution case are that on 04/12/1998 at about 1:30 p.m. when complainant Amratlal Ambalal Patel, who happens to be the younger brother of the present appellant original accused No. 2, was going to his home with a bullock of the ownership of one Kanji Godadji and reached near a cement pipe factory, the present appellant original accused No. 2 and the original accused No. 1 Punbha Shivubha allegedly demanded money towards expense in tune of Rs.2.5 lakh incurred after beating by Patels' of Laljinagar, to which, the present complainant had refused to give such money and hence, the accused got excited and the appellant herein original accused No. 2 allegedly abused the complainant, whereas, the original accused No. 1 allegedly assaulted the complainant with a dagger (khanjar) and caused injuries. The accused also, in the aid and abetment of each other, dragged the complainant to the nearby lake and sinked the head of the complainant in the water twice or thrice with a view to commit murder. Thus, the accused committed the alleged offence for which, a complaint came to be lodged against them.

(3.) Heard Mr. Pravin P. Panchal, the learned advocate for the appellant original accused No. 2 and Mr. K. L. Pandya, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent State.