NATHA NAGABHAI KARMAUR AHER Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is preferred by the appellant, original accused of Sessions Case no. 122 of 1998, decided by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jamnagar, holding the appellant guilty of the charge of offence punishable under Section 307 of I.P.C. Legality and validity of the order of conviction and sentence is assailed on various grounds mentioned in the memo of appeal. Mr. N.C. Thakkar, learned counsel appearing for the appellant-convict has also taken me through all these grounds.

(2.) By the order under challenge, the learned trial Judge sentenced the accused to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 7 years and imposed fine of Rs. 15,000/- and in default of payment of fine, imposed punishment of 3 months' imprisonment. According to Mr. Thakkar, till date, the appellant-convict has not paid the amount of fine imposed by the learned trial Judge, but he has instructions that the appellant-convict is going to pay amount of fine.

(3.) It is submitted by Mr. Thakkar that the order of conviction recorded by the learned trial Judge is based on erroneous appreciation of evidence. It is submitted that material contradictions emerging from the evidence of the injured witness and other witnesses examined during the trial, who are alleged to be the witnesses to the incident, have not been considered in their legal and proper perspective. It is submitted that theory of false implication placed by the appellant-convict before the learned trial Judge has not been correctly appreciated. That inimical terms that were existing between the appellant-convict and the complainant side were required to be considered. It is also submitted that the appellant-accused ought not to have been held guilty at least of the charge of offence punishable under Section 307 of I.P.C., and that the sentence imposed by the learned trial Judge is also very harsh, because, as such the quarrel had cropped up suddenly and there was no motive for the accused to kill the injured witness. In short, it is submitted by Mr. Thakkar that the order of conviction and sentence is not sustainable in the eye of law.