MUKTABEN VINUBHAI HANSRAJ PATEL Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two appeals arise out of a judgment and order rendered by Sessions Court, Junagadh in Sessions Case No. 125 of 1997 on June 28, 2000 recording conviction of the appellants in these appeals for the offence of murder of one Vinubhai Hansraj Patel husband of accused No. 2 Muktaben. Both the accused persons came to be convicted under Section 302 read with Section 120-B read with Section 34 of I.P.C. and were ordered to undergo imprisonment for life. Original accused No. 1 Naranbhai Jhinabhai Dodiya was ordered to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/-, in default, to undergo imprisonment for a period of six months whereas original accused No. 2 Muktaben was ordered to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default, to undergo S.I. for one month. Additionally, original accused No. 1 Naranbhai was convicted under Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act but no separate sentence was awarded. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and order, original accused No. 1 Naranbhai has preferred Criminal Appeal No. 894 of 2000 whereas original accused No. 2 Muktaben wife of Vinubhai Hansraj Patel has preferred Criminal Appeal No. 737 of 2000. Since both the appeals arise out of the same judgment and order, they are heard together and are disposed of by this common judgment. For the sake of convenience, appellant Naranbhai Jhnabhai Dodiya is referred to as accused No. 1 and appellant Muktaben wife of Vinubhai Hansraj Patel is referred to as accused No. 2 in this judgment.

(2.) As per the prosecution case, accused No. 2 was married to deceased Vinubhai Hansraj Patel. She had two sons from the wedlock, (1) Rohit Vinubhai Patel, aged about 12 years at the time of incident and (2) Gautam Vinubhai Patel, aged about 8 years at the time of incident. It is further the case of the prosecution that accused No. 2 developed illicit relations with accused No. 1. This led to a disturbed marital life and the stage came when accused No. 2 deserted her husband and started living in the company of accused No. 1. At the intervention of relatives and social workers, in recent past of the incident, the accused No. 2 came back to her matrimonial house and started living in company of deceased Vinubhai Hansraj Patel.

(3.) Learned advocate Ms. Banker for both the appellants submitted that the prosecution case depends on deposition of only one eye-witness who is a child witness and, therefore, his deposition may not be the correct reproduction of facts that may have happened. Ms. Banker submitted that the deposition of eye-witness Rohit has to be weighed in light of the fact that he was aged just 12 years at the time of the incident; that when the incident occurred, he may have been terror-stricken; that he may have rested on imagination and, therefore, the deposition may not be given any weightage. It was also submitted by Ms. Banker that the child witness may have been prejudiced against the accused because of their alleged illicit relationship. It was also contended that this eye-witness has remained silent for about 31/2 months although he claims to have seen the incident of murder of his own father and, therefore, the deposition loses credibility. It was also submitted by Ms. Banker that the circumstances do not complete the chain of events to establish nexus between the accused and the crime. It was, therefore, submitted that the appeals may be allowed.