MADHUBHAI NARANBHAI AMBARELIA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY way of this appeal, the appellant -accused has challenged the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 3 Bhavnagar at Mahuva in Sessions Case No. 201 of 2008 on 23/12/2010, whereby the appellant -accused was convicted for the offences punishable under Ss. 302, 307, 324 and 498 -A of the Indian Penal Code and under Sec. 135 of the Bombay Police Act and are sentenced as under:

(2.) THE prosecution case in nutshell is that, accused got married with injured -victim -Dahiben prior to seventeen years of the incident and since last six months, the accused was keeping doubt over her character and was giving mental and physical harassment to her wife and therefore she was staying at her parental home since last six months and thus keeping grudge over the same, the accused had gone to her parental home on 06/06/2008 between 7:00 and 7:15 hours at Village Gundarna and gave an axe blow on the head of his father -in -law who succumbed to the injuries. The accused had also given axe blow on head of his mother -in -law and thereby caused grievous hurt and was died during the treatment on 14/06/2008. It is also the case of prosecution that accused had given three axe blows on head of his wife and thereby caused injuries to her and attempted to commit her murder. It is also the case of prosecution that accused had also caused injury on shoulder of his daughter by giving axe blow. Thus, the accused had committed murder of his in -laws and caused grievous hurt to the injured witnesses.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel Ms. Meenu Kumar appearing for the appellant -accused has contended that prosecution has not proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. She has contended that all the important Panch Witnesses to the Panchnama drawn were declared hostile and did not support the case of prosecution. She has mainly contended that complainant came to know about the occurrence of the incident from her mother, but mother of complainant was found unconscious and was not in a position to speak and thus the complaint was given by gathering information from here or there. Thus, the complaint is not required to be believed. She has further contended that no particular information about the incident was given to the doctor by complainant and other witnesses and after lapse of sufficient time, the list of names were given. She has further contended that if the deceased persons were taken to hospital in time and treatment was given, there are chances of their alive. She has further contended that evidence of the eye -witnesses are contradictory and they are of the same family and therefore cannot be believed. She has contended that no independent witnesses are examined. The evidence of child witness is also not believable.