VIJAY Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both these appeals are filed against the common judgment and order dated 26.11.2008 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 20, City Civil and Sessions Court, Ahmedabad in Sessions Case Nos. 225 of 2006 and 394 of 2006 by the present appellants -original accused nos. 1 and 2 of Sessions Case No. 225 of 2006, who were convicted for the offence punishable under Sec. 302 read with Sec. 114 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, "IPC") and ordered to undergo imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs. 3,000/ - each and, in default of payment of fine, further simple imprisonment for three months was imposed. Accused nos. 1 and 2 were also held guilty for the offence punishable under Sec. 392 read with Sec. 114 of IPC and ordered to undergo imprisonment for seven years with a fine of Rs. 2,000/ - each and, in default of payment of fine, further simple imprisonment of two months was imposed. Accused nos. 1 and 2 were also held guilty for the offence punishable under Sec. 452 read with Sec. 114 of IPC and ordered to undergo imprisonment for five years with a fine of Rs. 1,000/ - each and, in default of payment of fine, further simple imprisonment of one month was imposed. For the offence punishable under Sec. 135 (1) of the Bombay Police Act, accused no. 2 was ordered to undergo six months' imprisonment. All the sentences were to run concurrently. By the impugned judgment, however, original accused nos. 3, 4, 5 and 6 of Sessions Case No. 225 of 2006 and accused of Sessions Case No. 394 of 2006 were acquitted.

(2.) The case of the prosecution is that one Kunjbihari Krushnalal Barot lodged a complaint stating that on 12.12.2005, the watchman and the Secretary of Ghanshyamnagar Society, Sabarmati, of which he is the Chairman, came to his house and informed him that doors of flat No. D/12 were lying open and, therefore, the servant who was working in the said flat of Chandraben entered the said flat and found that she was lying dead in a pool of blood. It was informed that throat of the deceased was slit by some sharp cutting weapon. It was also informed that safe vault of the deceased was empty. With these allegations, a complaint was lodged.

(3.) Mr. Bhargav Mehta and Mrs. Rekha Kapadia, learned advocates appearing for the appellants -original accused nos. 1 and 2 have taken us through the evidence on record and submitted that the impugned judgment and order is against the evidence on record. It is submitted that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused. It is also submitted that a false case is filed against the accused and they are wrongly roped in. It is further submitted that the case is based on circumstantial evidence and the prosecution has not proved the complete chain of events, therefore, the trial Court has committed an error in convicting the accused persons. It is also submitted that many goldsmiths have turned hostile. It is also submitted that one of the crucial witnesses, Inspector Rajput, has admitted in his deposition that he did not note down any vardhi or information which he received regarding the accused persons gathering at Naranpura. By taking us through the evidence of Sushil Chmpalal Soni, PW -14, it is submitted that this witness in his cross -examination has stated that he did not remember the names of the persons, who had come to his shop for selling or purchasing the ornaments. It is submitted that the prosecution has not proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and merely on the basis of arrest panchnama and discovery of knives and ornaments, it would not be appropriate to convict the accused persons. It is also contended that there are corrections in the medical certificate on which reliance is placed by the trial Court, therefore, it may not be believed. It is also submitted that as per the FSL report, no blood was found on the ring and pant of accused no. 1. It is also contended that looking to the young age of the accused and considering the fact that they belong to poor families, benefit of doubt is required to be granted to the accused persons. It is submitted that there is no eye witness to the incident and the accused are wrongly roped in and they are wrongly convicted by the trial Court. In view of above, it is submitted that the appellants ought to have been acquitted from the charges levelled against them and prayed that this appeals may be allowed by setting aside the impugned judgment.