PAVANSINH GANGASINH TOMAR (THAKUR) Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By Way Of This Appeal, The Appellant Original Accused has challenged the judgment and order dated 07.05.2012 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.8, Ahmedabad City in Sessions Case No.193 of 2011 whereby the present appellant original accused was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code and has been sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and fine of Rs.5,000/, and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one month, and for the offence punishable under Section 135(1) of the Bombay Police Act, he has been sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for fifteen days. The sentences were ordered to run concurrently and the accused were given benefit of setoff.

(2.) It Is The Case Of The Prosecution That On 12.2.2002 During morning time the appellant was laughing at the daughter of Bhavarlal and therefore Mahendra Dojiram had scolded the appellant, on which a scuffle had taken place and thereafter once again scuffle took place in the evening and the appellant had beaten Mahendra Dojiram for which a complaint was registered with Meghaninagar Police Station. It is the further case of the prosecution that on the next day i.e. on 13.02.2002 in the evening when the complainant was passing through the house of the appellant, he found the appellant and Havaldar Dojiram Prajapati quarelling verbally. Havaldar Dojiram had asked as to why he has beaten his brother Mahendra and what he intended to do, upon which the appellant got excited and had took out knife from the pocket of his coat and had inflicted knife blow on stomach and on left hand of the deceased and thereafter he flew from the spot. The injured was taken to hospital where he was declared dead. A complaint was lodged by the complainant against the appellant with the Meghaninagar Police Station being C.R.No. I 54 of 2002.

(3.) The learned counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that the case against the accused cannot be said to have been proved inasmuch as there is no sufficient evidence found against him. He has taken us through the evidence of the complainant and stated that even if the case of the prosecution is accepted, then also it is required to be noted that the complainant was very aggressive, and earlier the day of incident the complainant has threatened to lodge the complaint against the appellant. In that view of the matter, the appellant while defending himself has taken out the knife and had given three blows on the deceased. He therefore submitted that there is no motive on the part of the appellant to cause death of the deceased. It is also submitted that looking the medical evidence of P.W.13 Dr.Shilpaben Kanubhai Yadav the following injuries were found: