HAIDER AYUB MIYANA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in this Appeal filed under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ( Sthe Code for short) is to the correctness of the judgment and order dated 1.3.1999 rendered in Special Sessions Case No. 124 of 1995 by the learned Special Judge (Atrocity) and Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad Rural, by which the sole Appellant ( Sthe Accused for short) has been convicted for commission of the offences punishable under Sections 302, 307, 201, 354 of the Indian Penal Code ( SIPC for short) and also under Sections 138, 156 and 162 of the Indian Railways Act ( Sthe Act for short), and sentenced to imprisonment of life and fine of Rs.1000/- in default of payment of fine SI for 3 months for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC, RI for 2 years and fine of Rs.500/- in default of payment of fine SI for 45 days for the offence punishable under Section 201 IPC, RI for 2 years and fine of Rs.1000/- in default of payment of fine SI for 3 months for the offence punishable under Section 354 IPC. No separate sentence for the offences punishable under Section 307 IPC and under the Act has been imposed upon the accused. It is also ordered that all the substantive sentences shall run concurrently.

(2.) The prosecution case as disclosed from the vardhy given by PW-20 Gulabsinh Devusinh, Head Constable as well as on the basis of the statement of PW-13 Hansaben Arjanbhai Parmar, and unfolded during trial is as under:

(3.) In support of the Appeal, Mr. Chirag M. Pawar, learned advocate of the Accused, appointed by legal aid, has contended that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the guilt of the Accused beyond reasonable doubt. The so called evidence of eye witness PW-13 Hansaben Arjanbhai Parmar bristles with a lot of contradictions with regard to the fact that she has seen the Accused in the train as well as identified the Accused in TI parade. The TI parade is held in perfunctory manner and it was an empty formality. It is also emphasized by him that TI parade is not held as per the rules and regulations under the Bombay Police Manual, therefore no reliance can be placed on the so called eye witness PW-13 Hansaben as well as the evidence of TI parade. It is also pointed out by him that so far as the blood stains on the clothes of the deceased is concerned, it was having blood group 'A' and the Accused is also having 'A' blood group. The accused has also received injuries on his thigh. Therefore, merely on the basis of the said evidence, he cannot be connected with the alleged crime of murdering Samuben. The Mamlatdar has not taken care to select the dummies falling within the same age group as well as similar physiques and therefore TI parade loses its evidential value. He, therefore, submitted that the impugned judgment and order is against the evidence on record and the trial Court has misdirected itself in reading the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and hence the impugned judgment and order convicting and sentencing the Accused for commission of the offences punishable under Sections 302, 307, 201 IPC as well as under the Act, deserves to be quashed ans set and aside by giving benefit of doubt and thereby acquitting the Accused of the offences with which he was charged. He, therefore, urged to allow the Appeal.