ANILKUMAR SURESHBHAI BATHAM (KAHAR) Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is filed against the impugned judgment and order dated 27.5.2009 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Deesa, in Sessions Case No.88 of 2008. By the said judgment, the accused was held guilty for offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, "IPC") and ordered to undergo imprisonment for life with fine of Rs.500/- and, in default of payment of fine, further simple imprisonment of one month was imposed. The accused was also held guilty for offence punishable under Section 309 of IPC and ordered to undergo simple imprisonment for one month with fine of Rs.100/- and, in default of payment of fine, further simple imprisonment of five days was imposed. Being aggrieved by the impugned judgment, this Criminal Appeal is preferred by the accused against his conviction.

(2.) The case of the prosecution is that on 2.2.2008 at about 9 to 9.15 a.m., the accused entered the house of the complainant and thereafter with an intention to commit the offence entered the room of the deceased Parvati, who was the wife of the accused. It is alleged that thereafter the accused given knife blows to the deceased and committed her murder. Not only that, after commission of offence, the accused also tried to commit suicide. With these allegations, the complaint was filed against the accused.

(3.) Mr.B.B.Naik, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the appellant-accused has taken us through the evidence and submitted that the impugned judgment and order is against the evidence on record. He submitted that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused. He also submitted that a false case is filed against the accused and the prosecution has not given the correct version as to how the incident in question has happened. He also submitted that though it is alleged that the incident had happened in the room of the deceased, however, there were no blood stains in her room and the blood stains were found from the kitchen, therefore, the case of the prosecution is not true and correct.