SHAILESHBHAI RANCHHODBHAI VASAVA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By Way Of These Appeals, The Appellants Original Accused have challenged the judgment and order dated 28.12.2010 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Bharuch, Camp Ankleshwar in Sessions Case No.37 of 2010 whereby the appellants original accused was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 114 of Indian Penal Code and have been sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and fine of Rs.5,000/, and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three months. The accused were given the benefit of setoff.

(2.) It Is The Case Of The Prosecution That The complainant Sureshbhai Chitlabhai Vasava that he is residing with his family at Village Kesargam, Hanuman Faliya, Taluka Valiya, District Bharuch and doing the work as a daily wager. The complainant is having three sons and that his eldest son Chandubhai who is staying in the same falya had an illicit relation since last five years with Laxmiben widow of Ranchhodbhai Jesangbhai Vasava. It is the further case of the prosecution that because of illicit relation of Chandubhai with Laxmiben, on 28.10.2009 the complainant went with his herds to graze them at about 9:00 a.m. and returned at about 3:00 p.m., and after taking their milk went to supply at Intakla Dairy and returned at about 8:00 p.m., both the accused i.e. the son of Laxmiben namely Mukesh and Shailesh had given a blow of small axe and dhariya on the head of the deceased for which the deceased succumbed to the injuries. A complaint was lodged by the complainant against the appellants with the Valiya Police Station being C.R.No. I 146 of 2009.

(3.) The Learned Counsel Appearing For The Appellants Has submitted that the case against the accused cannot be said to have been proved inasmuch as there is no sufficient evidence found against them. He has contended that there are material contradictions in the version of the witnesses and the witnesses which were examined, they all are related to the deceased and no independent witnesses which were available at the time and place of incident have supported the case of the prosecution. It is contended that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. It is also contended that the view taken by the trial court is based on conjectures and surmises and the evidence of the witnesses are not considered in its true spirit and the appellants have wrongly roped by the prosecution and the accused have been wrongly convicted under Section 302 of IPC. It is also further contended that the majority of the witnesses have turned hostile and contended that even as per the history given to the Medical Officer Dr.Vijay Parmar, the complainant stated that he received information from one of the person of village about the attack on his son which fact is totally contradictory to the complaint. It is further contended that the learned trial Judge has committed an error in arriving at the conclusion that it is proved that by weapons axe and dhariya the deceased was injured on the vital parts of his body and it is proved that the accused had intention to cause death of the deceased by the said weapons at the said place and the accused have caused injury to the deceased. It is further contended that the learned trial Judge has committed an error in not considering the fact that the weapon which was discovered was rotten and the edge was bended and no blood was found from the clothes of the accused. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the appellants deserves to be acquitted by granting the benefit of doubt.