KIRITBHAI DAHYABHAI KHARADI (SUTHAR) Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Present appeal is preferred by the original accused no. 1 (hereinafter referred to as appellant - accused) against the judgement and order of conviction and sentence dated 06.05.2011 passed by the 7th (Ad-hoc) Additional Sessions Judge, Vadodara in Sessions Case No. 104 of 2010 whereby the appellant - accused was ordered to undergo life imprisonment & was ordered to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/- in default to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months for offence under section 302 of Indian Penal Code. The appellant - accused was also ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month and was ordered to pay fine of Rs. 100/-, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten days for offence punishable under section 135 of B.P. Act. The accused was given benefit to set off.

(2.) The case of the prosecution is based upon a complaint given by the complainant Girish Lokeshchandra Dubal who in his complaint has stated that on 19.02.2010 at around 08.30 to 09.00 pm, while the accused was attending a marriage ceremony, he received a phone call from his son that there was a quarrel between his daughter and her husband and that her husband was beating his daughter. The complainant and his wife therefore reached the house of deceased and saw the deceased lying on the ground with head injury.

(3.) Mr. Pratik Barot, learned advocate appearing for the appellant submitted that the impugned judgement and order of conviction is bad and without appreciating the evidence produced on record. He submitted that majority of witnesses have turned hostile. He submitted that P.W. 5 though has not been declared hostile, his evidence does not support the case of the prosecution. He has drawn the attention of this Court to the defence taken by the accused in his statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C and submitted that in fact the evidence of P.W. 8 is not truthful. He submitted that P.W. 8 was highly interested in the property of the accused and therefore P.W. 8 has wrongly roped in the accused.