DINESH RAMANBHAI KOLI PATEL Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of this appeal, the appellant has challenged the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 18/09/2008 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Valsad in Sessions Case No.82 of 2007, whereby he has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs.2,000/, in default, to undergo three months' simple imprisonment. He was also convicted for the offence punishable under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo one year's simple imprisonment with a fine of Rs.1,000/, in default, to undergo one month's simple imprisonment. The appellant was charged for the offence punishable under Sections 37 (1) read with Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act, however he came to be acquitted for the said charges.

(2.) The Case Of The Prosecution In Nutshell Is that on 01/06/2007 between 9:30 p.m. and 01:00 a.m., in the night hours, on Amli Sonvada Road, near Sukhlav Village, when it came to the knowledge of wife of the appellant that the appellant having illicit relationship with other lady, the appellant, with an intention to kill his wife, took her on his Suzuki Motorcycle at a deserted place and by inflicting serious injuries on her head with a weapon like hammer caused her murder. It is also the case of prosecution that after committing murder of his wife, the appellant with a view to destroy the evidence, had tried to show that his wife had died on account of the injuries sustained by her during the accident. Thus, the complaint was registered.

(3.) Learned Advocate appearing for the accused has mainly contended that the case is based on circumstantial evidence. Except the presence of the appellant, no other witness was found to have been present at the scene of offence. He has contended that the prosecution has not examined the crucial witnesses viz., the brother of the accusedGanpatbhai, as also Vijaybhai and Sanjaybhai, who were alleged to be present at the scene of offence. He has further contended that looking to the case of the prosecution, at face value, the incident in question was said to be a vehicular accident and complaint was lodged as accidental death and the offence of murder was registered later on.